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

[Dr. Jeffrey Race]

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:49:13 -0600, Hyunseog Ryu wrote:

>But if we do make policy for organization internal policy like this, we
>will have policy after policy, and without  mechanism to check whether
>somebody is following this policy or not, I think this policy will be 
dead
>policy, and that's not a good practice for overall policy concept.


It can easily be automated and this has been covered earlier in the
thread  but you may have missed it as you said;  I retain the 
posts if you wish me to resend.

However the MAIN POINT is that the RIRs have to respond to complaints.
Some now do, and some don't, and some respond to  complaints about
bad data but refuse to respond to complaints about enabled role
accounts which fail to operate ("Mail to <abuse> refused; mailbox
is full"; retry postmaster, receive error "Mail to <postmaster> is
refused; mailbox is full".)

The thrust of the proposal is the operator most follow the rules
detailing operational contact;  if he doesn't follow the rules,
he loses his IP address (eventually).

It's common sense, really.  If you are a parent you know how it
works: "You were driving drunk last night; I am taking away the
keys to the car."

Jeffrey Race