[arin-discuss] POC Reauthorization

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steve Bertrand
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 4:45 PM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-discuss] POC Reauthorization
> 
> hostmaster at arin.net wrote:
> 
> > In an effort to ensure WHOIS accuracy, ARIN asks you to 
> review your organization's data. This e-mail is being sent to 
> all e-mail addresses associated with the following OrgID:
> 
> > OrgID:      EAGLE-28
> 
> > Below is a list of POC handles associated with the IP 
> addresses and AS numbers registered to the organization. 
> Please review each of these POCs in ARIN WHOIS to ensure the 
> data is accurate.
> > 
> > https://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=SBE96-ARIN
> 
> [..snip..]
> 
> The above snipped message I received from ARIN requested that 
> I ensure all POC data to be correct, and to fix the POC 
> objects that need to be updated.
> 
> Since the message did not ask me to verify my POC 
> information, I know the message can't be related to 2008-7.
> 

Correct.  When I sent in my policy proposal for POC cleanup
that was later merged with 3 other proposals to create 2008-7,
I -also- at the same time sent in a suggestion via the ARIN suggestion
box to start testing POC entries.

The suggestion was PARTIALLY complied with.  Essentially, ARIN
was fine with beginning to do this testing - but had to have an NRPM
policy change to actually DO anything about failed responses.
I suspect also that they only started testing the largest block
holders.

The tests your getting are completely voluntary.  You can
ignore them and nothing will happen.    2008-7 changes that,
of course.

> I've discussed this with a few people off-list, but I'm going 
> to ask this publicly anyway:
> 
> Why-oh-why, if ARIN is sending out these messages (from what 
> I can tell) to test for bounces, is it not including 
> something to inform the valid
> POC(s) about the impending IPv4 problem, and what its successor is?
> 
> What I mean to say, is that I won't mind a little 'on the side'
> consultancy work when the "we don't need IPv6 right now" are 
> scrambling, but I'm sure that there are small ops out there 
> who may still be in the dark.
> 
> I discussed privately with a few about using 2008-7 as a 
> vehicle to include a blurb about the v4 runout (and it's 
> urgency), and understandably, I gathered that ARIN may not 
> want to appear as to be sending 'unsolicited' email.
> 
> However, given that the message I received was 'unsolicited' 
> (and doesn't look like it requires any action on my part), 
> how bad can it hurt if there was even an informational 
> _signature_ appended to it?
> 
> I'm an op/engineer, so it would be great if someone could 
> explain to me the logic behind not wanting to use POC 
> verification messages as vehicles to inform/remind the number 
> resource holders that time is up...
> 

There is nothing preventing this from being done, it is completely
up to the discretion of ARIN staff.  2008-7 was specifically written
to allow ARIN staff to do this if they wished.  2008-7 takes pains
to stay OUT of operational details and this is definitely operational.

I would suggest you do what I did which is to submit a formal suggestion
via the ARIN suggestion box and see what they say.

I would keep in mind, though, that the list of e-mail addresses in
the POC database essentially amounts to a mandatory mailing list -
after 2008-7 gets done with it, every POC holder will be forced to
have an e-mail address in WHOIS that they -must- respond to, which
basically means they MUST read mails sent to it.

A number of people on this list already aren't happy with this - and
this list is a public list!  I would guess that a whole lot more
people who are NOT subscribed to arin-discuss will be incensed that
ARIN has the nerve to require them to answer e-mails otherwise they
will lose their IP addressing.  The only credibility/leverage that
ARIN has to respond to them is the fact that they signed a contract
guarenteeing to supply contact info and publish it in WHOIS.  And
my experience with people leads me to believe that most people
absolutely detest being reminded that they are contractually obligated
to do something that they really don't want to do.

Thus, while the temptation is "wow, look at this great list that
we can send all of these Good Thing reminders to, we gotta use it"
I would caution against it.  The "running out of IPv4" reminder is
pretty important, but so are a lot of other things too.  It is kind
of a slippery slope, if we include this reminder, how are you going
to argue against a hundred other pet peeves of people being included
in the POC-check e-mail?

My 2008 tax form had 2 inches of space devoted all of the "good causes"
who lobbied my state legislature to include a "$1 tax refund donation
checkoff box"  I can remember a few years ago when there was only 1
"good works" checkoff box, the state election fund.
 
Ted