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

[Lee Howard]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, McBurnett, Jim wrote:

> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:46:38 -0500
> From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett at msmgmt.com>
> To: Lee Howard <lee.howard at wcom.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-1: Human Point of Contact
> 
> 
> >pick an IP address, look up the ARIN record for that IP address, and
> >report it to the Abuse POC given in ARIN's records.  Only the latter
> >case is on topic for ARIN PPML.
> 
> The later PPML topic is the one that confuses me sometimes, and hence the
> RFC ignorant.  A few ISP's I have been spammed from 
> don't accept abuse@ secuirty@ etc.. And the ARIN POC is often inaccurate for
> the <fill in your choice word(s) here> people on purpose. And as of late, 
> many spammers are forging most of the header anyway....

Somewhat separate issues, still, I think.
Enforcing ABUSE at domain isn't something I can imagine ARIN doing.  
Requiring valid POC information is the subject of a current policy 
proposal, 2003-2.  

> >or one of my domain names?  I'm not asking about the email address
> >ABUSE at domain, which is described in the RFC, I'm asking about 
> >the Abuse 
> >POC given in ARIN's WHOIS database.
> 
> Good Point.. I guess my answer is let's push the POC Policy to get the POC's 
> to a higher level of accuracy... 

Excellent, I understand your position now.

  
> >In summary, I am asking if there is a proposal to require 
> >something more
> >than reachability for the Abuse POC.  If there is, I am asking for 
> >clarification, and whether this should be part of proposal 2003-1 or a
> >separate proposal.  If there is no such proposal, then there 
> >is no debate.
> 
> Correction if there is no such proposal we need to create one...
> AND if it takes it, send the idea to the IETF..

Here's the text of 2003-2:
http://www.arin.net/policy/2003_2.html
Excerpt:

  2. All networks should [regardless of geographical location] provide a 
  valid e-mail contact for network [NOC@] and abuse [Abuse@] contact. Make 
  it standard. 

It goes further to establish methods for verification and penalties for
non-compliance.  Are your concerns addressed by this policy proposal, or
do you have a new policy to propose?

> Jim

Thank you for taking the time to discuss the policies.  I must say that
it's good to see so much participation on the list; it definitely helps
clarify the proposals being considered at the meeting.


Lee