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

[Lee Howard]

I think this thread has already been ravelled, but . . .

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, JLS wrote:

> Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:56:19 -0700
> From: JLS <JEFFSL at COX.NET>
> To: Lee Howard <lee.howard at wcom.com>
> Cc: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-1: Human Point of Contact
> 
[. . .]
> > If this is your proposal, how do you propose to assign domain names to
> > network assignments?  If 172.16.0.0/16 is allocated to Acme Holdings,
> > who operates under the domain name acme.com, acme.net, acme.com.ca,
> > acmeholdings.com, and explodinganvil.mil, which domain will you require
> > to be on the Abuse POC?
> 
> When one looks up the domain assigned to the specific IP address in question
> the proper TLD is returned and there needs to be the requirement that a
> working abuse@ address be active for that domain.

What do you mean "the domain assigned to the specific IP address"?
 abuse at in-addr.arpa.   ?  

> Internal aliases are fine just as long as the individual who is more than
> likely unaware of any ISPs internal aliasing scheme can reach the POC
> through the standard abuse at domain.tld address.

Fair enough.  So an organization may list any address it wishes for its
ARIN Abuse POC, but must have ABUSE at everydomain enabled as well.

> > I've said before that I don't mind people using UUNET or WorldCom as
> > examples, positive or negative, in discussions on this list or at public
> > meetings.  My only request is that the example be used to support or
> > argue ARIN-related matters, and not as venues to air grievances.  If
> > you have a beef with me or the company I work for, email me privately
> > so the rest of the people on this list who are trying to get some work
> > done don't have to be involved.
> 
> Specific examples often serve to illustrate the need for standardization.

Agreed, and I'll leave it there.

Lee