[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Fri Jan 29 14:41:31 EST 2010

> George,
> I don't think we're disagreeing per say.  I think we're looking at this
> from
> different angles.
> There are a couple reasons I chose not to eliminate SWIPs in the proposal;
> One, it would never fly.  Two, I have customers that want to be SWIP'd and
> are competent to field inquiries into their IP space and 3, I was looking
> for a simple proposal that would protect my customer list while still
> allowing others to see if a range was allocated, how much of it was
> allocated and to who it was allocated (by name).  I felt that was a middle
> ground that everyone could live with.
> Plus ARIN still uses SWIP for justification.  They don't care who it's
> assigned to, just that it's assigned.
> Nothing in my proposal takes away from anything that is already
> functional.
> It simply gives the ISP the ability, along with it's customer, to decide
> if
> the address, phone number and e-mail should be displayed.  Name is still
> required.
> Aaron

I would consider supporting the proposal allowing company anonymity if the proposal maintained a requirement for functional Tech and Abuse contacts with a real telephone number and a real email address.  I see no need for a physical or mailing address for these contacts.

The Tech and Abuse contacts need to be persons actually affiliated with the network.  Either direct employees or a responsible contractor who manages the network would be acceptable.  If the ISP manages the network then the ISP would be the appropriate contact, more appropriate in many cases than the company CEO certainly.  

I realize that at this time the discussion is really about the petition, so I will step back and wait until the proposal itself is being discussed to contribute further.  


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list