<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Hi John,<br>
<br>
Now that I have had more time to look at it, I believe you do state the
issue I have :<br>
<br>
" * POCs that were moved from resource tech to Org abuse are not
happy about no longer having control of their resource record"<br>
<span>
</span><br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I think clarity on what is necessary to put the correct data into the
record would be useful.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I do agree that putting resource POCs back in where there is reasonable
suspicion that the POC is invalid/hijacked should trigger a lock.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<blockquote style="border: 0px none;"
cite="mid:C826326D-4F73-4334-BC7A-F9B052770FF8@arin.net" type="cite">
<div style="margin:30px 25px 10px 25px;" class="__pbConvHr"><div
style="width:100%;border-top:2px solid #EDF1F4;padding-top:10px;"> <div
style="display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:middle;width:49%;">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net"
style="color:#485664
!important;padding-right:6px;font-weight:500;text-decoration:none
!important;">John Curran</a></div> <div
style="display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:middle;width:48%;text-align:
right;"> <font color="#909AA4"><span style="padding-left:6px">March
29, 2017 at 4:05 AM</span></font></div> </div></div>
<div style="color:#909AA4;margin-left:24px;margin-right:24px;"
__pbrmquotes="true" class="__pbConvBody">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 28 Mar 2017, at 8:04 PM, Steve Noble <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="" href="mailto:snoble@sonn.com">snoble@sonn.com</a>> wrote:<br
class="">
<div>
<div class="">
<div class="" dir="auto">
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">Steve - </div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">Acknowledged, and thanks for the
excellent feedback. </div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">Given that all of these organization
records are currently subject to vetting (and</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">would remain so under the proposed
change to put the Tech and Admin contacts</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">onto the Org record), it would be
helpful to get some additional feedback from you.</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">If the vetting scope is not changed
per the proposed change to the registry that is now </div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">under consultation, would you prefer
that the registry remain as-is, or that we proceed </div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">with putting the original network
Tech and Admin contacts on the Org records as </div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">proposed?</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">Thanks!</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">/John</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">John Curran</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">President and CEO</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">ARIN</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="margin:30px 25px 10px 25px;" class="__pbConvHr"><div
style="width:100%;border-top:2px solid #EDF1F4;padding-top:10px;"> <div
style="display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:middle;width:49%;">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:snoble@sonn.com"
style="color:#485664
!important;padding-right:6px;font-weight:500;text-decoration:none
!important;">Steve Noble</a></div> <div
style="display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:middle;width:48%;text-align:
right;"> <font color="#909AA4"><span style="padding-left:6px">March
28, 2017 at 5:04 PM</span></font></div> </div></div>
<div style="color:#909AA4;margin-left:24px;margin-right:24px;"
__pbrmquotes="true" class="__pbConvBody"><div dir="auto">Hi John, <br><div
dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div dir="auto"
class="gmail_extra">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. </div><div dir="auto"
class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div dir="auto" class="gmail_extra">My
issue is with cases like mine where everything was in order. </div><div
dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div>
</div>
<div style="margin:30px 25px 10px 25px;" class="__pbConvHr"><div
style="width:100%;border-top:2px solid #EDF1F4;padding-top:10px;"> <div
style="display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:middle;width:49%;">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:snoble@sonn.com"
style="color:#485664
!important;padding-right:6px;font-weight:500;text-decoration:none
!important;">Steve Noble</a></div> <div
style="display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:middle;width:48%;text-align:
right;"> <font color="#909AA4"><span style="padding-left:6px">March
28, 2017 at 8:24 AM</span></font></div> </div></div>
<div style="color:#909AA4;margin-left:24px;margin-right:24px;"
__pbrmquotes="true" class="__pbConvBody"><div dir="auto">Hi John, <div
dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">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 <span
style="font-family:sans-serif">those in control of the object the
ability to update information such as the physical address. </span></div><br><div
dir="auto" class="gmail_extra"><br><br></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body></html>