[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality

Joe Morgan joe at joesdatacenter.com
Fri Jan 29 22:36:23 EST 2010

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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list