[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Dan Pinkard <dpinkard at accessline.com> wrote:
>>>> As I read this, the goal is to defeat using the whois registration as a tool
>>>> to beat the heads of those who may consider signing the LRSA. I agree with
>>>> that notion, especially as it makes it clear that forcing people into policy
>>>> in a heavy-handed way can easily run-afoul of legalities and simple
>>>> good-will. However, as it has been pointed out, we don't really want to lose
>>>> that resource for the people who do pay. However unfair of those who don't
>>>> pay up a little, the larger disservice would be to remove that all together.
>>>> And what of the gray area for organizations who have some stuff under RSA
>>>> and some stuff that should be LRSA if anyone were motivated to do it?
>>>> It seems like taking away the baby's rattle is a good step, but not that
>>>> way. What other means are available to motivate organizations to bring
>>>> legacy space under the LRSA that don't cause other problems?
>>>> If we're loking
>>>> at the larger picture of parceling out unused or underutilized IPv4 space,
>>>> is there a way ARIN can ease those needs in trade? (Is there a desire to
>>>> help or harm that?)
>>> I think that there are a few (workable) issues. In order for law
>>> enforcement not to oppose, there needs to be "a" whois registry. The
>>> second is in-addr re delegation.
>>> I like Bensons proposal. I think it needs some refining, but count me
>>> on the tentative support side.
> [ clip ]
>> You bring up a good point about law enforcement, but the lack of a
>> WHOIS entry does not make the assignee untraceable, it merely means
>> that ARIN is not providing it's services.
> I'm not arguing here, but if we have anything less than we have now in
> terms of whois requirements, they'll line up in opposition. The
> proposal "could" require a referal to an rwhois server or to another
> whois service if one exists. But a whois requirement equal to or
> better than ARIN's is a must for this to pass IMHO.
It would indeed be appropriate to publish the last known contacts for
records without sufficient RWHOIS.
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions