[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-11: Purpose and Scope of WHOIS Di rectory

[Charles Scott]

Ian:
  Not sure what you mean by making 5) and 6) a reccomendation. If you mean 
that verification should be optional for direct ARIN allocations, then I'm 
not sure what good the rest of it is. Perhaps I missed your point.
  I don't see item 6) as such a big deal, just thought it would be nice to 
opt to see only verified reccords if you wanted to. Simply a search 
option. 
  As for rigid, I think verification is important to the proposal and to
serving a main purpose of the whois database. Much of the rest of my
points are intended to make it less rigid in that it still permits
unverified contact data for assignments and end-user reccords, still
permits access to the full amount of data if people want to use unverified
contact data, permits people to lessen their workload in one of two ways 
(by either not doing the assignment reccords or by possibly avoiding 
handling the calls if their verified). 
  

Chuck



On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Ian Baker wrote:

> >   Perhaps there's a compromise in this. If (1) whois data for top level
> > allocations is mandatory (2) contact data verification for top level
> > allocations is mandatory, (3) contact data verification is optional for
> > provider assignments and end users, (4) records required to have contact
> > verification and records that have opted to have contact verification are
> > clearly marked as being subject to verification, (5) a process
> > periodically verifies all such records and clearly marks those that don't
> > verify, and (6) there is an optional method to query only verified
> > records, then I think we have the best of all worlds.
> 
> That's similar thinking, but I'm wondering if that's too rigid a regime -
> more implementation than policy.
> 
> Make points 5) and 6) a recommendation and we're in full agreement.