[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Aaron Wendel wrote:
>> You can support the idea but not the proposal.  I definitely don't
>> support the proposal.  I am willing to look at the idea, however.  If
>> you can make a logical argument that the current policy as written
>> makes it impossible for ISP's to exclude private individuals or
>> residences in certain circumstances, I'd support a modification to
>> current policy.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Residential customers are already
> covered under a separate policy allowing them to be deemed "private".  My
> proposal provides equal protection for hosted and collocated customers.
> 

No it does not.  Didn't you read your own proposal?  It doesn't protect
hosted and collocated customers AT ALL.  It protects the _ISP's_ that 
sell services to those hosted and collocated customers.

Those hosted and collocated customers are businesses that are out there
paying good money to make themselves known to the world so they can
sell websites and whatever else they do.  Your idea of "protecting" them
is to interfere with this process.


>> You and the other supporters want to re-open discussion, because you
>> clearly aren't willing to re-read the archives as to why this kind
>> of proposal is generally a bad idea.  Well, OK.  I guess sometimes
>> people don't want to read boring old archives and prefer the lively
>> give and take of discussion.  I think it's
>> a diverting waste of time but since there's enough people that appear
>> to need it, I'll do my duty as an opponent and try to show you of
>> the error of your ways.
> 
> And on this I will go so far as to say you have no idea what you're talking
> about.  I've read all the archives from 6 years ago.  I don't agree with the
> conclusion, feel that it is outdated and that ARIN membership and
> participation has changed significantly enough that this topic deserves
> revisiting.  I've talked to many people who think this policy already exists
> and when they are educated can't believe how stupid it is that it doesn't.
> The previous proposal that failed is from 2004.  It failed 20-7.  27 votes.
> Almost that many people have weighed in on this topic just in the last 24
> hours.  I feel it deserves to go to a vote.
> 

So in other words, your going to slam the previous decision based on
process and completely ignore the actual discussion itself - and all you
have to offer is that ignorant people think it's stupid?

There's a reason they are called "ignorant".

> Hopefully, in the mean time, we can have a reasonable discussion on the
> topic without people calling other people spammers, child molesters or
> communists and come to a compromise that everyone can live with.
> 

And your definition of "reasonable" is "agrees with my proposal"

Ted

> Aaron
> 
>