[arin-ppml] (no subject)

Hi Warren,

Other, perhaps more practical ways of looking at it:

The default public/open availability of comprehensive whois  
information for the institutions controlling number resources  
represents a kind of distributed mechanism for whois data error  
detection and correction. Assuming that the practical needs that  
justify the creation and maintenance of a comprehensive registration/ 
whois service also justify the maintenance of *accurate* (and  
complete, and timely) registration/whois information, and consequently  
that the only alternative to satisfying that need via a distributed  
feedback mechanism is a mechanism that delivers/preserves the same  
accuracy levels through purely internal (RIR staff administered)  
efforts, then the arrangement with many eyes contributing is likely to  
be much more cost effective, i.e., to provide the same benefits at a  
much lower cost to ARIN members.

One might also consider the merits of this "distributed management"  
approach to maintaining whois as a useful mechanism for preserving the  
openness and transparency of ARIN policy outcomes. The more that such  
(by current convention, "public") contact information remains publicly  
accessible, the less ARIN members have to rely on ARIN staff to  
produce summary answers to sensitive policy questions using non- 
sharable/non-disclosable member data. In a world where virtually every  
important institution is at the center of a permanent debate between  
defenders of "x is generally good" and partisans of "x is hopelessly  
corrupt"  -- with the vast majority of stakeholders likely to be in  
the "trust but verify" center -- seems like it would be prudent to  
weigh the costs and benefits very carefully before eliminating the  
public data resources that make such independent analysis/verification  
efforts possible.


On Dec 7, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Warren Johnson wrote:

> Moving into a more private system signals a shift from the grass- 
> roots,
> free-love philosophy (that has been the cornerstone of the movement)  
> to a
> more private, closed, profit-driven/motivated system.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at]  
> On
> Behalf Of Chris Engel
> Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 12:09 PM
> To: 'arin-ppml at'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] (no subject)
> John Curran wrote:
> " and in fact, AcmeI has agreed by contract to be reachable for  
> network
> operations purposes.  In fact, AcmeI has the very same provisions in  
> their
> contract with HostingCo, and HostingCo has (at least in theory) a  
> person
> reachable via cell for handling their server issues.  AcmeI also  
> wants to
> make sure that HostingCo's subdelegation is very visible to the  
> community,
> so that the first call goes to the party which is most likely to be  
> able to
> solve the problem. "
> John, obviously it's in the ISP's interest to do as little work  
> there as
> possible, in order to reduce thier operating costs. On the other  
> side of the
> coin, one of the reasons why customers choose one service provider  
> over
> another is the level and type of services they provide to thier  
> customers. I
> would think that who's information goes in the technical contact  
> field would
> be something to be worked out individualy between the block-holder  
> and thier
> service provider(s) at each level in the chain. Since there is no  
> "one size
> fits all" solution that would cover well all (or even a majority)  
> individual
> cases.  In EITHER case, however, I am still curious as to WHY  
> anything more
> then Technical Contact Phone # & E-mail is REQUIRED to be published  
> in order
> to achieve the desired end?
> Currently SWIPS/WHOIS collects and publishes far more information  
> then that,
> does it not?  None of which would be neccessary or particularly  
> useful for
> the purpose of getting in touch with some-one that can act upon the
> technical issues at question.
> I mean how is it neccesary/useful for some-one to know that Block X  
> is owned
> by ACME Corp at 123 South Main Street, if the entity who is ACTUALY
> responsible for handling technical issues for them is Computer  
> Consultants,
> Inc ?
> I would think that the information that would be required to address  
> the
> issue would be...
> IP Address #: x.x.x.x
> Tech Contact E-mail:  abuse at Tech Contact  
> Phone:
> 1-555-555-5555
> Why is there a need to publish anything more then that?
> Christopher Engel
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the  
> ARIN Public
> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at if you experience any issues.