[AusNOG] Aus Industry Congratulations Email

[Ross Wheeler]

On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Skeeve Stevens wrote:

> Question. If the result of funding is public, why aren't the applications
> that funding?  Everyone else has to publicly disclose what they do in
> relation to most government funding, so why not this?

I'm going out on a limb here, so I might be miles wide of the mark.

If you were fully compliant, no need for a DRIP (hence the "I")
If you were not fully compliant, you had to state in what regard you were 
not fully compliant and either
  (a) seek exemptions from needing to comply with parts
and/or
  (b) describe your plan to become fully compliant.

There are probably good reasons why anyone who was seeking (or granted) 
exemptions from some or all of the legislation, should not be disclosed.
Eg, if "micro ISP xxx" were granted an exemption from needing to keep most 
of the data, they'd be the ideal provider for a would-be terrorist, pedo 
or journalist to seek out and use, since there wouldn't be any data 
retained.

If "mega ISP yyy" was given an exemption or extension of say, 2 years, to 
capture data for some particular part of their network, that may also have 
"national security implications".

There may also be commercial in-confidence (or at least commercially 
sensitive) vendor/hardware/location information, potentially carrier 
facilities locations, disclosure of what is handled where, etc.

Finally, I'm sure they don't want us talking together. We might "plot 
against them", or consire and collude - not that those in this industry 
would do such a thing nowdays.

Knowing your submission was going to be made public might errr.. 
"influence" what you were prepared to admit to in your DRIP, and perhaps 
they hoped we'd give them more detail about what we were doing, if we knew 
it was to remain confidential(ish). I know I would have been somewhat less 
forthcoming with my intentions if I'd been told the DRIP was to be made a 
matter of public record.