North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Big List of network owners?
On Oct 28, 2004, at 2:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
That irony may disappear soon, but perhaps not in a good way. Observing the general policy trend across the registries, it seems that all are moving toward a system where publicly available contact information for any/all assigned numbers is optimized for resource management, while preserving maximum flexibility for anonymous operation. That is to say, operators may eventually provide visible whois entries that include only a workable email address (e.g., [email protected]) and a cell phone number. So long as these contacts are sufficient to request/remit annual registry renewal fees, the whois requirement will be satisfied.On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:17:14 EDT, Tom Vest said:operators. For those 3000+/- you can be reasonably confident that theirCertainly matches up with what my gut feeling was telling me....
Opinions vary as to whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Some advocates suggest that anonymity will help mitigate some security issues, although it seems to me a little incongruous that security through obscurity is advocated in this sphere at the same time that it is ridiculed in other contexts. Anyway, during the ARIN public forum last week there were repeated suggestions that the "scope and purpose" of whois database be clarified once and for all, at least at the institutional (ARIN) level. I for one would hate to see operator identity (i.e., as you say "who's *really* responsible" for a given number) disappear from that that "scope and purpose," especially without considering that change and all of its implications very very carefully.