[arin-ppml] WhoWas Service Now in ARIN Online Announcement
admin at directcolocation.com
admin at directcolocation.com
Thu Mar 29 09:11:44 EDT 2012
It was not my intention to provoke such intense response as I do
understand everyone's responses and appreciate them, as they are all valid
as I am trying to better understand both sides of the situation.
I was only trying to have so theoretical possibilities as to what the
original email that started this topic was about.
With this in mind I do not support anything that may negatively impact the
community and or operators in general, as I am sure we all want, I was
merely trying to understand the side of what Nicky stared here with this
topic and have feedback from all of you on the different possibilities.
Obviously I have that now and understand better the reasons the rational
of the responses all of you have offered.
I am a first time responder on here and did not intend to provoke such
passionate responses, as I was just trying to get involved, and should
have chosen a different topic or tried to better understand the service
before just jumping in.
On 3/29/12 7:55 AM, "Joe Provo" <ppml at rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 04:27:20PM -0400, admin at directcolocation.com wrote:
I do agree that it is not a bad thing but I do not see how it is a fair
approach for a new service being applied to the whois at this date
forward, if you were in the business of LAW then it would appear that it
was a law that was being implemented and now would effect you on anything
you have done in the past vrs now that you know making sure that you
govern yourself accordingly.
I am not a lawyer but I think they call this ex post facto in the fact you
cannot punished for something you did in the past.
Publishing != punishing. The ARIN community wants the history of
published records to be available. Given that the historical data
was once 'public', there is nothing new being revealed.
If there's shady dealings, frankly that is precisely what the
ARIN community wishes to be plainly seen by this historical
The problem I see is in this case is that as we all know the anti spammers
are not held accountable by any law or in some cases we do not know who
they are and or where they are, so if the have this information at there
Seems like you were trying to construct a sentence here but
it failed you. You might start by dropping the supposition
that anyone in the anti abuse realm is operating outside the
Could it put ARIN a position of some kind of liability from a potential
law suite for providing this information based on private business models
and who one chooses to do business with based on the legal side of the
quote can spam act as all spammers will calm they follow.
All the whois data was once public. There is nothing in whowas
that would be "private business models" or any such claptrap.
Your later attempts at sentences make it seem like you wish to
defend shady dealings and abuse facilited by obfuscated addressing.
If that is the case, then I'm not sorry that this services will
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE / NewNOG
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:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML