Person profile
PersonPublic policy participant
The available evidence covers Roles: President (ARIN).
Source description Public policy participant
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The statement explains why staff use customer location information for verification and expressly disclaims an argument for or against the policy. Operational need for a verification input does not by itself establish opposition to privacy protections. With only this contribution, there is no sequence of explicit positions to compare.
2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The statement explains why staff use customer location information for verification and expressly disclaims an argument for or against the policy. Operational need for a verification input does not by itself establish opposition to privacy protections. With only this contribution, there is no sequence of explicit positions to compare.
Conditions: This assessment concerns the retained April 2006 staff explanation, not every contribution Plzak made to ARIN discussions. · The message neither establishes the policy outcome nor specifies every circumstance in which the location information is used.
It was not an argument for or against the policy. The staff comment was that the information was still required for purpose of verification.
City/state/postal code of individual users is a part of the metrics that are used by staff. We will confirm that we do use it.
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
