[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95

[Rudolph Daniel]

I would like to know if all the stated opinions relate more to an ipv4 world
than ipv6, and as Leo touched on it, does ipv6 add a significant twist to
the argument?
RD


> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:52:07 -0800
> From: "George Bonser" <gbonser at seven.com>
> To: "Aaron Wendel" <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net>,       "Ted Mittelstaedt"
>        <tedm at ipinc.net>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95:
>        CustomerConfidentiality - Time Sensitive
> Message-ID:
>        <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE081F74E7 at RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> On
> > Behalf Of Aaron Wendel
> > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 5:29 PM
> > To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95:
> > CustomerConfidentiality - Time Sensitive
>
>
> > My proposal is about
> > obscuring the
> > address, phone number and e-mail of a collocated or hosted customer to
> > prevent poaching by competition.  I can use the rational that it
> > protects
> > the ISPs customer list and I could also use the "it protects customer
> > privacy" argument that obviously won 2004-7.
>
> Well, so I am a competitor combing through whois.  I see
> some-odd-site.com is your customer but there is no address and phone
> number.  So I either go to their contact page on their website or use
> directory assistance to look them up, and ask the person answering the
> phone to speak to the person in charge of their internet operations.  So
> how are they or you "protected" by such a rule and how does it prevent
> someone from cold calling your customers.
>
> Companies advertize and try to make it the opposite of difficult to
> contact them.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:55:56 -0500
> From: "Wrona, Ed" <Ed.Wrona at aeroflex.com>
> To: "Aaron Wendel" <aaron at wholesaleinternet.net>,       "Ted Mittelstaedt"
>        <tedm at ipinc.net>
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95:
>        CustomerConfidentiality - Time Sensitive
> Message-ID:
>        <9044AC0DFE57D142B393E2E1684E94E054C00C at EVS1.aeroflex.corp>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Aaron:
>
>        You make a valid point with the Action Photo analogy, however
> IMHO, they and companies like them represent a small percentage of colo
> customers. In the vast majority of cases, customers are the only ones
> with administrative access to an offending machine, again my opinion.
> Other than shutting down their cross-connect, I am not quite sure what
> the network operator would do in the case of such a complaint.
>
>        In either case, I have been reading this thread all day and I
> just do not understand the rationale.  Since you have stated that:
>
>                                "My proposal is about obscuring the
> address, phone number and e-mail of a collocated or hosted customer to
> prevent poaching by competition."
>
>        I may be way off base, however, from my perspective, I just
> don't see this happening.  I have never once received a solicitation or
> cold call from any network provider looking to offer service based on
> one of our SWIP's (or not that I recall or know of).
>
>        Further, how does hiding the address, phone number, and email
> prevent this "poaching" if it does exist ?  If the name of the company
> is there, can't they do some extra work and make the solicitation anyway
> ?
>
>
> Ed Wrona
> Network Administrator
> Aeroflex, Inc.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Aaron Wendel
> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 8:29 PM
> To: 'Ted Mittelstaedt'
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95:
> CustomerConfidentiality - Time Sensitive
>
>
> >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.
>
> You must be reading something different.  My proposal is about obscuring
> the
> address, phone number and e-mail of a collocated or hosted customer to
> prevent poaching by competition.  I can use the rational that it
> protects
> the ISPs customer list and I could also use the "it protects customer
> privacy" argument that obviously won 2004-7.
>
> >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.
>
> Not all of them.  I have a customer, Action Photo.  It's a photography
> studio run by two people.  They colo a server with me and have a /29. I
> have
> to SWIP their information even though they are the last people that
> should
> be called if there's an issue and would just end up calling me anyway.
>
>
> >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?
>
> No.  I'm going to change it.  There's a process for that and it's the
> process I'm going to use.  You insinuating that I am somehow trying to
> circumvent the system or shove it down people's throat by using my right
> to
> petition for a draft proposal shows your ignorance of the very system
> you
> proclaim to be supporting.
>
> >And your definition of "reasonable" is "agrees with my proposal"
>
> Are you serious because I'm starting to think you're just messing with
> me.
> I replied to a post from George Bonser asking how he would change it and
> one
> from YOU talking about compromise.  Make a suggestion.
>
> Aaron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
> Notice: This e-mail is intended solely for use of the individual or entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary,
> privileged, company confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under
> applicable law. If the reader is not the intended recipient or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
> communication is strictly prohibited.  If this communication has been
> transmitted from a U.S. location it may also contain data subject to the
> International Traffic in Arms Regulations or U.S. Export Administration
> Regulations and cannot be disseminated, distributed or copied to foreign
> nationals, residing in the U.S. or abroad, without the prior approval of the
> U.S. Department of State or appropriate export licensing authority. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify the sender by reply
> e-mail or collect telephone call and del
>  ete or destroy all copies of this e-mail message, any physical copies made
> of this e-mail message and/or any file attachment(s).
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:22:20 -0500
> From: Jim McBurnett <jim at tgasolutions.com>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: arin ppml <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum
>        Assignment Unit - Correct Title
> Message-ID:
>
>  <CCD4153D830F584982521DFC986BFF31534F8FE254 at tgainf06.TGASolutions.local>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> >>That's one reason why letting the ISP decide whether or not to give
> >>you a /24 suppresses abuse.
>
> Bill,
> This one item is a perfect example of the sponsorship idea I put at the end
> of my last post..
>
> Checkbox-- ISP A and ISP B-- Would you assign a /24 to this end user?
> Fill in the blank: (why or why not)
>
>
> The ISP's retain the right to have a comment on the assignment..
> Would that calm the concern about abuse?
>
>
> Policy could read:
>
> Upon submission for an ARIN Assigned PA /24, ARIN will contact both
> upstream ISP's via email utilizing the POC for that BGP ASN.
> If ISP endorses the request, the request is advanced for further ARIN
> consideration.
> If ISP does not respond within 5 business days, endorsement is considered
> to be implied.
> If ISP does not respond favorably, requesting organization is referred to
> that ISP and the merits of the
> ISP endorsement is considered by ARIN. Where ARIN may or may not advance
> the request based on the standing policies at the time.
> ISP may rescind or modify their endorsement in a timeline to be published
> in the endorsement requesting email from ARIN.
> That timeline should not exceed a period of 10 business days.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:51:30 -0800
> From: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
> Message-ID: <4B639EB2.1080801 at ipinc.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I have to disagree with that.  Everyone on this list has not posted
> regarding this issue.  The people posting are the ones who are
> unhappy and the ones (like myself) who think their objections are
> unwarranted.  But that is not the "majority of folks"  It MIGHT be
> the "majority of posters" but the posters on both sides are a
> minority.
>
> Also a lot of people are unhappy with how the information is entered
> because they don't like the SWIP system and want to replace it with
> some webinterface thing, they are not objecting the the actual principle
> of making the data available.
>
> Other RIR's don't seem to have a problem with this data being available
> and I frankly think that the reason this topic generates attention
> on this list is that because the list is heavy with people from North
> America where so much of the Internet connectivity is provided privately
> by corporations.
>
> In the US there is this cultural mythos surrounding the perceived
> "business underdog".  People root for the small guy against his large
> competitors, Microsoft for example was the darling of the hobby market
> when it was slugging it out with IBM - then when Microsoft got big
> everyone who loved it turned their back on it and now they love Apple,
> (and are willing to pay 6 times for a computer for the privilege but
> that's a different story).  This despite the fact that the little guy
> in some cases is providing an inferior product against the big guy.
> (ie: the ipod shuffle vs the Sony MP3 walkman)
>
> The people pushing these "cover your IPs" type proposals like to frame
> it as David vs Goliath, due to this mythos, and it always gets good
> press, the small struggling ISP being poached by the giant lumbering
> ISP who sets their sales dogs to digging into WHOIS.
>
> The reality is that there isn't significant customer loss from poaching
> WHOIS from a business that is doing a good job and keeping it's
> customers happy.  Speaking from sales experience, trying to poach
> customers from a WHOIS list is really, really dumb.  A good salesman is
> going to define a territory of customers, figure out how to serve
> them, then go after them.  A territory is commonality between
> customers.  Some companies use geography as a criteria, some
> use type of business. Some use connections and their customer
> territory looks senseless from an outside observer until you
> find out that all their customers golf at the same course as the
> salesman.  NO territory I ever heard of a salesman using ever
> mapped neatly onto TCP/IP ranges.  ISPs do not customarily
> group all their medical customers into the same IP range, or
> all their construction customers, or all their customers who
> run webservers.  You could get a better lead
> list from pointing a blunderbuss at the phone book and pulling
> the trigger and going after anything still readable than by
> pulling WHOIS data.  At least, with the phone book method, they
> would all live in the same area.
>
>  >  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.
> >
>
> The sheer number of proposals is frankly because the opponents
> of the status quo are arguing on principle, as are the supporters
> of the status quo.  It is an argument that YOU, Leo, aren't going to
> solve, nor am I.  It is like the Abortion argument in the US, it's
> a fight based on principles on both sides, and it isn't going to
> end, ever, no matter what the law is written to say.
>
> If the status quo was that ARIN covered everything then there
> would be just as many proposals to OPEN the database.
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> I am sorry you are so cynical yourself to say that but that
> just isn't true.
>
> As someone else posted this topic is fundamentally an argument
> of the Good of the Many outweighing the Good of the Few, or
> the One.  (for those Trekkies out there)  Yes, for some
> "corner cases" it might be beneficial to privatize their
> SWIPS, if for no other reason than they lack the creativity of
> coming up with baloney names for SWIP entries (ie: Universal
> Exports, Binford Tools, and the like)  But the community would
> suffer, as there is currently NO procedure for routine audits
> by the RIR of the SWIP data, nor is there ever likely to be,
> and almost certainly nobody on this list would be willing to
> see their fees increase to pay for one.  IPv6 does not change
> this because the issue here is reachability of the other guy who
> is spamming/attacking/whatever to you vs reachability of the
> other guy so you can waste your time trying to poach him.
>
> History is replete with examples of this kind of argument, over
> a great many topics, and there's no shortage of them today.
> People get emotional and come up with wild scenarios to prove
> their point because this is how these arguments work.  And usually
> there is not much movement from either side - which is why the
> AC tried dropping this proposal in the first place.
>
> I will close with one last point, and that is the Internet got
> to where it is today with the system it has now.  That is probably
> the most compelling argument that openness in WHOIS was the
> right choice in the beginning, as it has WORKED.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 21:36:23 -0600
> From: Joe Morgan <joe at joesdatacenter.com>
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality
> Message-ID:
>        <38dd4e411001291936i42584c57ne0e1e81088a4e9bd at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Quoting TED
>
> "I will close with one last point, and that is the Internet got
> to where it is today with the system it has now.  That is probably
> the most compelling argument that openness in WHOIS was the
> right choice in the beginning, as it has WORKED."
>
> I think this just shows how closed minded you are. I have never heard
> any intelligent argument that states that just because something
> worked it was the best way. I happen to think there is probably always
> a better way which is exactly why we have the processes in place that
> we do to change things. It is even possible that the internet would be
> much better than it is today had some changes been made. Does that
> mean I am criticizing the people who worked on it before and the
> advances they made? No not at all. I am simply trying to say that just
> because it worked and maybe worked in a good way does not mean it was
> the best way or that it is the best way for right now.
>
> On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
> > Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > I have to disagree with that. ?Everyone on this list has not posted
> > regarding this issue. ?The people posting are the ones who are
> > unhappy and the ones (like myself) who think their objections are
> > unwarranted. ?But that is not the "majority of folks" ?It MIGHT be
> > the "majority of posters" but the posters on both sides are a
> > minority.
> >
> > Also a lot of people are unhappy with how the information is entered
> > because they don't like the SWIP system and want to replace it with
> > some webinterface thing, they are not objecting the the actual principle
> > of making the data available.
> >
> > Other RIR's don't seem to have a problem with this data being available
> > and I frankly think that the reason this topic generates attention
> > on this list is that because the list is heavy with people from North
> > America where so much of the Internet connectivity is provided privately
> by
> > corporations.
> >
> > In the US there is this cultural mythos surrounding the perceived
> > "business underdog". ?People root for the small guy against his large
> > competitors, Microsoft for example was the darling of the hobby market
> > when it was slugging it out with IBM - then when Microsoft got big
> > everyone who loved it turned their back on it and now they love Apple,
> > (and are willing to pay 6 times for a computer for the privilege but
> > that's a different story). ?This despite the fact that the little guy
> > in some cases is providing an inferior product against the big guy.
> > (ie: the ipod shuffle vs the Sony MP3 walkman)
> >
> > The people pushing these "cover your IPs" type proposals like to frame
> > it as David vs Goliath, due to this mythos, and it always gets good
> > press, the small struggling ISP being poached by the giant lumbering
> > ISP who sets their sales dogs to digging into WHOIS.
> >
> > The reality is that there isn't significant customer loss from poaching
> > WHOIS from a business that is doing a good job and keeping it's customers
> > happy. ?Speaking from sales experience, trying to poach customers from a
> > WHOIS list is really, really dumb. ?A good salesman is
> > going to define a territory of customers, figure out how to serve
> > them, then go after them. ?A territory is commonality between
> > customers. ?Some companies use geography as a criteria, some
> > use type of business. Some use connections and their customer
> > territory looks senseless from an outside observer until you
> > find out that all their customers golf at the same course as the
> > salesman. ?NO territory I ever heard of a salesman using ever
> > mapped neatly onto TCP/IP ranges. ?ISPs do not customarily
> > group all their medical customers into the same IP range, or
> > all their construction customers, or all their customers who
> > run webservers. ?You could get a better lead
> > list from pointing a blunderbuss at the phone book and pulling
> > the trigger and going after anything still readable than by
> > pulling WHOIS data. ?At least, with the phone book method, they
> > would all live in the same area.
> >
> >> ?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.
> >>
> >
> > The sheer number of proposals is frankly because the opponents
> > of the status quo are arguing on principle, as are the supporters
> > of the status quo. ?It is an argument that YOU, Leo, aren't going to
> > solve, nor am I. ?It is like the Abortion argument in the US, it's
> > a fight based on principles on both sides, and it isn't going to
> > end, ever, no matter what the law is written to say.
> >
> > If the status quo was that ARIN covered everything then there
> > would be just as many proposals to OPEN the database.
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > I am sorry you are so cynical yourself to say that but that
> > just isn't true.
> >
> > As someone else posted this topic is fundamentally an argument
> > of the Good of the Many outweighing the Good of the Few, or
> > the One. ?(for those Trekkies out there) ?Yes, for some
> > "corner cases" it might be beneficial to privatize their
> > SWIPS, if for no other reason than they lack the creativity of
> > coming up with baloney names for SWIP entries (ie: Universal
> > Exports, Binford Tools, and the like) ?But the community would
> > suffer, as there is currently NO procedure for routine audits
> > by the RIR of the SWIP data, nor is there ever likely to be,
> > and almost certainly nobody on this list would be willing to
> > see their fees increase to pay for one. ?IPv6 does not change
> > this because the issue here is reachability of the other guy who
> > is spamming/attacking/whatever to you vs reachability of the
> > other guy so you can waste your time trying to poach him.
> >
> > History is replete with examples of this kind of argument, over
> > a great many topics, and there's no shortage of them today.
> > People get emotional and come up with wild scenarios to prove
> > their point because this is how these arguments work. ?And usually
> > there is not much movement from either side - which is why the
> > AC tried dropping this proposal in the first place.
> >
> > I will close with one last point, and that is the Internet got
> > to where it is today with the system it has now. ?That is probably
> > the most compelling argument that openness in WHOIS was the
> > right choice in the beginning, as it has WORKED.
> >
> > Ted
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Thank You,
> Joe Morgan
> Joe's Datacenter, LLC
> http://joesdatacenter.com
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 55, Issue 73
> *****************************************
>



-- 
Rudi Daniel
e Business Consultant
http://www.svgpso.org
http://oecstimes.wordpress.com
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” - Bertrand
Russell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20100130/2f3a5067/attachment.htm>