[ppml] Policy 2002-5 and 2002-6 with Spam-L

Bill Darte billd at cait.wustl.edu
Wed Dec 4 07:59:19 EST 2002

So let's imagine that ARIN BoT proceeded with 2002-5 and 2002-6 in some

Let's further assume that those that read Spam-L would heed the notice and
remove listed blocks.

Would this in effect be the laundering process that John Brown has

If there were statements within the policies that eliminated the recurrent
replacement (laundering of blocks) then would these policies and practice
positively impact the industry and ARIN's ability to pursue its mission?

Would there necessarily be some further 'investigation' or longer delay in
reissuance be required to help insure the blocks were again viable?

Would the cost of such a practice be prohibitive to ARIN and its members?

Perhaps ARIN Staff would like to speculate on the cost/practice for such?

Bill Darte

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Jeffrey Race
To: dawn.martin at wcom.com; ppml at arin.net; Taylor, Stacy; Trevor Paquette
Sent: 12/3/02 11:21 PM
Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy 2002-5

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002 15:10:37 -0700, Taylor, Stacy wrote:

>Is there a way to inform the blacklists that a block has been returned
>the registry and should be removed from the list?

Announce on Spam-L

Jeffrey Race

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list