[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

John,

I think this is the FCC ruling he speaks of, and it does seem to shut down 
public disclosures of most of what is contained in SWIP/WHOIS without 
customer consent.  This has been the rule for regular phone calls for a 
long time, called CPNI. Until today I did not realise the FCC extended 
this to the internet. It also appears that even someone with a contract 
with ARIN could require ARIN to restrict their data from third party 
disclosure, as it states that private contract provisions cannot override 
the right to insist on privacy.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-22A1.pdf

It looks like static and even dynamic IP addresses and MAC addresses are 
considered protected information. IP addresses are the bread and butter of 
ARIN. Domain names are protected, thus Email addresses are protected since 
they contain a domain name, and they have also ruled that name, address 
and telephone numbers are protected as well.  They even talk of DNS 
lookups being protected.

It kinda looks like the FCC has made a large part of SWIP/WHOIS unlawful 
with this order unless ARIN has been given consent by each holder of the 
information, even if they are a current member under contract.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Mon, 17 Jul 2017, John Curran wrote:

> On 16 Jul 2017, at 8:46 PM, Paul McNary <pmcnary at cameron.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>> This is probably targeted to John and the ARIN staff
>>
>> I was reading some articles today. Under the current net privacy rules and proposed
>> net neutrality rule making goes through or even if not, we are not allowed to put
>> customer data in a publicly accessible  data base. I don't think we are even allowed
>> to provide that information to a third party without our customer's written opt-in.
>> You can only get the IP "address holder's" information because of the contract we
>> have with ARIN where we give up that right of privacy. So you can make us give you
>> that information but you can not force us to break the law, if the end user doesn't have a
>> contract with ARIN. Even if we would SWIP a current /24 and their information is
>> disclosed to a third party (ie ARIN) and the end user doesn't have a contract with
>> ARIN, I think we are in violation of the Internet privacy rules as they are and have been.
>>
>> John, can you and the ARIN staff get a written clarification from FCC about this.
>> It basically guts the privacy rule making if SWIP is performed on a customer
>> who does not give written approval.
>>
>> What am I missing? The WISPA lawyers say we are still required to follow the
>> Internet policy rule making.
>
> Paul -
>
>    ARIN obviously does not require you “to break the law”, but to be able to further
>    pursue this matter we’re going to need a bit more information.
>
>    Do you have a reference for the particular law or rulemaking proceeding that
>    the WISPA lawyers assert is in conflict?   I would be happy to speak with them
>    directly if that would help – email me appropriate contact information when you
>    have a moment.
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>