"Matthew" == Matthew Kaufman <matthew@eeph.com> writes:
Matthew> The truth is, it doesn't even need to be a case of "grandma" Matthew> listed in the whois (though that is a legitimate issue these Matthew> days). If as an ISP, I list "Bob's Flower Market" (which has Matthew> a DSL line and IP addresses for every cash register and Matthew> order-fulfillment machine) in whois, all that does is: Matthew> A) Cause "Bob's Flower Market" to get spam at the address Matthew> harvested from whois, Are you talking about email spam or snail-mail here? Matthew> and Matthew> B) Cause people who have issues with virus-infected Matthew> machines to call Bob (who doesn't know jack about viruses) Matthew> instead of calling me (I can remotely shut him off until I Matthew> can drive over there with a CD full of anti-virus software), Matthew> and So list yourself as the contact (but not the network owner) rather than him. There's a world of difference between hiding the whole assignment (which means that, for example, I can't find out the extent of Bob's network in order to block the viruses he's spewing without also affecting traffic from the perfectly clean networks who have the bad luck to be assigned adjacent IPs) and making the contacts point to the ISP rather than the customer in cases where the ISP is the only competent technical contact. Matthew> C) Gives my competition Bob's name and phone number, so Matthew> they can try to sell him their DSL service instead. Cost of doing business. The operational requirements of the rest of the network, who _do_ have a substantial interest in being able to know where one customer network stops and another one starts, and the identity of the customer if it's a business, outweighs any inconvenience you might suffer as a result. Matthew> (Imagine the response if you asked any other local business Matthew> to post their complete customer list, with the names and Matthew> unlisted phone numbers of buyers, on the front door) I don't know about where you are, but where I live it's a legal requirement for any company to display its registered company name on every place where it does business. So if you're a provider of, say, office space, then yes, the complete list of your customers will be on the front door. (Your introduction of "unlisted phone numbers" into the argument is of course wholly spurious - the issue of how much contact info should be listed is a separate one from the issue of whether the network assignment itself should be listed.) Matthew> What it does NOT do is: Matthew> 1) Reduce the amount of virus traffic accountable to Bob Matthew> (might make it worse, if people call him instead of me), or But it stops me from reliably blocking Bob's network without affecting innocent parties who don't have a virus problem but do have adjacent IPs. Matthew> 2) Reduce the amount of spam in the world (probably Matthew> increases it, at least from Bob's point of view), or If Bob happens to be a spammer, it makes it harder to block his networks without affecting innocent bystanders. It makes it harder to detect that his provider is simply shuffling him around in response to blocks or complaints. It makes it harder to link up the connections between otherwise apparently separate spammers or spam gangs. I see no reason why there should not be some flexibility in the whois data regarding who is listed as a contact for what purpose, the extent of information required for listed contacts, etc. But there needs to be a stronger argument than just vaguely saying "privacy concerns" in order to justify not listing the extent of the IPs allocated, and the owner and business address of the recipient of the allocation except where the allocation is to a residential user. As for the ARIN proposal 2004-6, I notice that it would have the effect of essentially nullifying the requirements of the previously adopted policy 2003-5 (requirements for RWhois servers). That policy expressly states that reassignment info must be available to the public and not just to ARIN staff. There is nothing given in the rationale for 2004-6 to explain why 2003-5 should be summarily overruled in this way. -- Andrew, Supernews http://www.supernews.com