[ppml] Policy Proposal -- Eliminate Lame Server policy

I am also against this proposal.

----- Original Message -----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
To: Brian Dickson <briand at ca.afilias.info>
Cc: ppml at arin.net <ppml at arin.net>; ppml-bounces at arin.net <ppml-bounces at arin.net>
Sent: Wed Sep 12 07:45:45 2007
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal -- Eliminate Lame Server policy


I'm against for this proposal with same reason. 


Hyun 

Hyunseog Ryu
Senior Network Engineer
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc./Cinergy Communications. Q-Comm Company
Applications Engineering
13935 Bishops Drive
Brookfield, WI 53005 
Phone. +1-262-792-7965
Fax. +1-262-792-7733
Email. hryu at norlight.com




Brian Dickson <briand at ca.afilias.info> 
Sent by: ppml-bounces at arin.net 

09/12/2007 09:07 AM 	
To
	Member Services <info at arin.net> 
cc
	ppml at arin.net 
Fax to
	
Subject
	Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal -- Eliminate Lame Server policy

	




I oppose the proposal. Argument on why follows:
>>                                   Recent PPML discussion has called attention to the
>>                                   fact that lame DNS delegations are more an operational
>>                                   issue than one of policy.  As such, the existing lame
>>                                   delegation policy should be removed from the NRPM
>>                                   to remove the resultant confusion.  This is not meant
>>                                   to prevent ARIN staff from taking reasonable action
>>                                   WRT DNS operational issues related to resources issued
>>                                   by ARIN, but, such action can be covered by staff
>>                                   operational guidelines and is not within the scope
>>                                   of Address Policy.
>>     
The point of having policy documents which are public, is not to inform 
ARIN staff what they're
allowed to do, but to inform recipients of ARIN-provided services what 
*they're* allowed to do.

It is important that Section 7 remain part of the policy document for 
this reason, more than anything
else.

Without explicit rules governing expected behaviour, the problem space 
can only be expected
to mushroom. Why this would likely happen, includes scofflaws, lazy 
administrators, as well as
"bad actors", the latter of which are dwarfed in volume by the first two.

Anything which increases the potential workload for enforcement, 
regardless of intent, is a big
step backwards.

And *that* is why I oppose the proposal.

Brian Dickson
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member Services
Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.