[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality

[Aaron Wendel]

Thanks Leo,

I'm going to take the weekend to reread the proposals below and will refrain
from posting again until next week.  I hope everyone has a peaceful weekend.

Aaron


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 7:35 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality


I supported the petition for this proposal.  I did that not because I think
this proposal is perfect, but because I think the issue is still important
and relevant.  Also, as I have already posted, I believe there is a new
twist on it with respect to IPv6; which may not be discussed in this
proposal but it can be a vehicle for this discussion.

However, this issue is not new.  Some of our newer members may not
understand that.  If you were not around for the following discussions, you
may want to look in the Policy Proposal Archive on ARIN's web site, and or
reach some back PPML archives....

2001-7: Bulk ARIN WHOIS Data
2002-4: Bulk Copies of ARIN's WHOIS
2002-8: Privatizing POC Information
2003-1: Required Performance of Abuse Contact
2003-2: Network Abuse
2003-5: Distributed Information Server Use Requirements
2003-9: WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)
2003-11: Purpose and scope of WHOIS directory
2003-16: POC Verification
2004-4: Purpose and scope of ARIN WHOIS directory
2004-6: Privacy of Reassignment Information
2004-7: Residential Customer Privacy
2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul
2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
2006-6: Bulk WHOIS agreement expiration clarification
2008-1: SWIP support for smaller than /29 assignements
2008-7: WHOIS Integrity Policy Proposal

If you want my take on the entire area; the vast majority of folks are
unhappy with the current state of how SWIP/WHOIS/contact information is
entered, used and distributed.  However, even though perhaps 80% of the
people are unhappy with the current system, no more than 20% of the people
can agree on any "solution", and thus the status quo always wins.

However I think the sheer number of proposals is proof that the status quo
is not working for a lot of people.

Sadly though, the discussion has already devolved into useless analogies,
attacks, lack of understanding, lack of empathy, and down right cynicism.
Everyone is sure there is some ulterior motive involved, to hide a spammer,
make money, or game the system.  Rather than thinking about Joe Average,
everyone is talking about the one corner case that will always exist, no
matter what system we have in place.

Quite frankly, everyone involved needs to go back, read the archives of all
of the proposals above, think hard about the principals they actually
support, and post about those.  Attacking each other, or coming up with wild
scenarios to prove your point is well, a waste of everyones time and effort.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2648 - Release Date: 01/29/10
13:35:00