[ARIN-consult] [E] Re: Consultation on Orphaned Organization (Org) and Point of Contact (POC) Records

[Brian Jones]

See inline:


> On Aug 6, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Joe Provo <jzp-arin-consult at rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> [personal hat on]
> 
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 07:37:54AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> [snip]
>> It might be nice if it was sufficient to simply validate the POC
>> ala current POC validation procedure rather than requiring some
>> form of change, but if there???s some reason not to permit that,
>> I???m not strongly tied to the idea.


> Allowing POC validation to de-orphan (until the next iteration)
> nicely covers a number of smaller edge cases previously raised.
> I think that's a big win for aliveness detection.

+1 - I like the idea of being able to de-orphan until the next iteration.

> 
> Offhand, I'd lean to qtrly rather than 60 days as even the
> larger iceberg orgs tend to be able to address things on that
> timescale. Not super wedded to that detail.
> 

+1 - I think 90 days is a better timescale in general. That should keep things much more up to date than we are currently seeing while not being an overly long amount of time.


> JC previously wrote:
>> Of the 454,090 Org IDs that currently have one and only one
>> reassignment, 81,480 (18%) are duplicates (i.e. share the exact
>> same organization name with another of the 454,090).
>> While there may be differences in street address, contacts, etc,
>> this suggests an opportunity on the part of ISPs to examine their
>> SWIP publication practices and cut down on duplicate records,
>> which in turn reduces orphaned records.
> 
> I would refer back to the entire discussion around "POC validation
> on insert/creation" related to larger entities with poor practices.
> As that's only 18% of the current problem, perhaps a symmetrical
> process of "POC validation at time of orphaning" would be desirable
> *after* this larger garbage collection process had run its course?
> It seems to me that keeping the data hygiene part of the transaction
> would increase the likelihood of success (attention is currently
> here) else we'll be permanently relying upon garbage collection
> sweeps and the possibility of having to re-engage well after
> transactions have been completed and forgotten.
> 

A pre-orphaning/validation notice could also be helpful in addition to the validating at the time of orphaning. This gives orgs a chance to discuss any changes that may be needed before the actual orphaning takes place.


> Cheers!
> 
> Joe
> 
> --
> Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
> Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

--
Brian E Jones, CSP-SM, CSP-PO
NI&S Virginia Tech
bjones at vt.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180806/9254eba9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20180806/9254eba9/attachment.sig>