[ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-1

[Taylor, Stacy]

Items 1, 2, and 3 elicit fairly immediate responses, yes?  The postal
solution would occur should the other three fail, and it would be the last
step before consequences.  The letter would serve as Notice of Action by the
Registry.

Stacy

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Darte [mailto:billd at cait.wustl.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:24 AM
To: 'Taylor, Stacy'; 'ppml at arin.net'
Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-1


Is the "Request response withing 30days" associated only with item 4 or all
of them???

billd

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taylor, Stacy [mailto:Stacy_Taylor at icgcomm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 10:33 AM
> To: 'ppml at arin.net'
> Subject: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2002-1
> 
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> The language of the process of notifying lame in-addr.arpas 
> is convoluted.
> Can we simplify it in this way?
> 
> 
> 
> 1) E-mail the POC associated with the in-addr.arpa
> delegation from the ARIN database.
> 2) E-mail the POC associated with the ASN(s) originating
> the route in the global routing table.
> 3) Telephone any POC associated with the ASN or ARIN records.
> 4) Send postal mail any POC associated with the ASN or ARIN 
> records. Request
> response within 30 days.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Stacy
> 
>