[ARIN-consult] Community Consultation on CKN23-ARIN Now Open

Steven Noble snoble at sonn.com
Wed Mar 29 17:21:04 EDT 2017

Hi John,

Now that I have had more time to look at it, I believe you do state the
issue I have :

"    * POCs that were moved from resource tech to Org abuse are not
happy about no longer having control of their resource record"

The entire reason I wanted to get back control of my AS was to update
the physical address nothing else.  My reasoning was that the address
should be current and correct.  Obviously an AS is not as valuable as IP
space, which I believe is what this mainly is addressing (no pun intended).

Do you have more data about what the POCs are having issues with?  If
these POCs are upset I assume you must be unable to vet them, otherwise
they would have control of the resource.

I think clarity on what is necessary to put the correct data into the
record would be useful.

I do agree that CKN23 should be removed as both the email and phone
number are invalid and I believe at a minimum the POC should contain
actionable data.

I do agree that putting resource POCs back in where there is reasonable
suspicion that the POC is invalid/hijacked should trigger a lock.

I am having issue with POCs who are still at the same ORG with the same
contact information being locked, which would be a small subset I
believe.  Said POCs would not have done anything wrong and their
requests should be honored with minimal interference.

Possibly this is what ARIN is planning to do, i.e. an old record with an
old POC gets updated, triggers abuse who then can easily vet that the
POC is valid.  Where as an old record with a new POC would require more
intensive vetting.
> John Curran <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>
> March 29, 2017 at 4:05 AM
> On 28 Mar 2017, at 8:04 PM, Steve Noble <snoble at sonn.com
> <mailto:snoble at sonn.com>> wrote:
> Steve - 
> Acknowledged, and thanks for the excellent feedback.  
> Given that all of these organization records are currently subject to
> vetting (and
> would remain so under the proposed change to put the Tech and Admin
> contacts
> onto the Org record), it would be helpful to get some additional
> feedback from you.
> If the vetting scope is not changed per the proposed change to the
> registry that is now 
> under consultation, would you prefer that the registry remain as-is,
> or that we proceed 
> with putting the original network Tech and Admin contacts on the Org
> records as 
> proposed?
> Thanks!
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> Steve Noble <mailto:snoble at sonn.com>
> March 28, 2017 at 5:04 PM
> Hi John, 
> I think it is logical to lock ones where the original domain does not
> exist or was registered after the object. Then I understand a more
> extensive vetting process. 
> My issue is with cases like mine where everything was in order. 
> Steve Noble <mailto:snoble at sonn.com>
> March 28, 2017 at 8:24 AM
> Hi John, 
> Having been bit by this and ending up in a multi-year mess to get
> control of an AS that was clearly mine, while still getting billed for
> it, I am concerned about the vetting process. My experience with the
> vetting process was very uncomfortable and is something that I do not
> believe anyone should have to go through. 
> My suggestion is to remove the incorrect information such as
> CKN23-ARIN from the objects and return them to their proper state.
> This will give those in control of the object the ability to update
> information such as the physical address. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20170329/5be7c56f/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-consult mailing list