[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-1: Human Point of Contact

[Sweeting, John]

Just want to point out that these policy proposals are submitted to ARIN
from the public that they serve; they are not proposed by ARIN or their
staff so please refrain from comments that suggest otherwise. Thank you.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 12:09 PM
> To: McBurnett, Jim
> Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-1: Human Point of Contact
> 
> 
> 
> Just for the record when voting on this one, I echo these 
> sentiments.  I
> sure can't put my name on everything and I don't see anyone 
> in my company
> being willing or able to fullfill this request.
> 
> As someone mentioned earlier, role accounts exist for a 
> reason.  We do an
> excellent job of responding to any coorespondence this way.  
> To put this
> task on a single person, even for a company our size, is 
> asking us to no
> longer respond to people.
> 
> Isn't it much like asking an ARIN employee to give out their email and
> phone to handle all new requests for IPs?
> 
> I would venture to guess that ARIN thinks they are doing a 
> much better job
> with their automated process than routing everything through a single
> employee.  Why would it be any different for us?
> 
> If things really break down and you can't get a role account 
> to respond,
> then there are conventional methods available to you.
> 
> Mury
> 
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
> 
> > > That sounds like a volunteer to me... You're available 24/7 right?
> > >
> > > Let's get real here, that policy isn't just bad it's absurd.
> > > Role accounts
> >
> > I remember a job I once had where when someone called and asked for
> > Roger Williams, someone became Roger. HMMM-
> > Should role accounts become no longer valid, I believe that 
> many will
> > find their own Roger. Sad to say, but I do not want my name 
> plastered any
> > more around the web than it already is.
> >
> >
> > > exist for a reason, and 99% of the time it is to improve
> > > communications.
> > > I'd suggest that trying to solve the 1% of the cases 
> where people are
> > > hiding behind roles by breaking the other 99% is not the 
> way to go.
> > >
> > > I'd also suggest that it is a fallacy to project what you consider
> > > "reasonable" in your business onto others. For example, 
> who is the 1
> > > person that you would recommend to handle all of UUNet's issues?
> >
> > Ah 1 person.. Sounds like Roger is in the bldg again...
> > I think we can say Roger is a Role account, but only in fact not in
> > Policy.
> >
> > This policy will never work.  If the one is a tech and 
> he/she will never
> > be able to finish the task, if the one is in management and 
> he/she will just
> > delegate, and hence the one is no longer a one....
> >
> > Either way, what happens when the one goes on vacation, 
> gets sick etc,
> > change the address for 1 day?
> >
> > anyway I think this policy is a little bit too strict.
> > and I can't foresee it working... nor it being enforceable..
> > Is ARIN going to ask for a drivers license # for every
> > new contact?
> > I think this policy needs to meet another old friend, Davy Jones..
> >
> > Jim
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>
> > > http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> > > GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41
> > > 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
> > >
> >
>