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

[Mury]

Cool ;)

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Sweeting, John wrote:

> Great, thank you for the clarification.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mury [mailto:mury at goldengate.net]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 12:47 PM
> > To: Sweeting, John
> > Cc: McBurnett, Jim; Richard A Steenbergen; ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-1: Human Point of Contact
> >
> >
> >
> > Whoa,
> >
> > What the heck are you talking about?  In no way, shape, or form did I
> > state that ARIN made this proposal, or did anything wrong.
> >
> > I merely made an example everyone on this list is familiar
> > with.  We are
> > talking about things to do with ARIN right?
> >
> > I used the "fact" that ARIN is better served by a "role"
> > account senario
> > to make a point that we are too.  Where is the harm in that?
> >
> > BTW, are you also telling me that ARIN staff, AC, and BOD
> > cannot submit
> > policy proposals?  Not that I think I suggested in any manner
> > that they
> > have, but it would surprise me if they were not allowed to.
> >
> > Mury
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Sweeting, John wrote:
> >
> > > 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)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>