[ppml] abuse contact requirements

[Cutler, James R]

1.	No.

2.	I can't find any IP-address business related benefit.  I see more
work required by applicants and more spam targets generated.

3.   No.

4.   ARIN should flag data which is known to be "bad" as long as there is a
well-defined process for "correction" and the ARIN community believes that
ARIN operations should be required to make such judgments.  The issue of
public access is a separate policy question which should be addressed
separately from data quality issues.

5.   ARIN should flag data which is known to be "bad" as long as there is a
well-defined process for "correction" and the ARIN community believes that
ARIN operations should be required to make such judgments.  

If the "bad" data is the primary POC for an allocation, some modest attempt
to contact the apparent record owner should be made, as discussed at recent
ARIN Public Policy meetings.  


-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Dul [mailto:andrew.dul at quark.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 11:48 AM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [ppml] abuse contact requirements


Hello,

The ARIN AC is soliciting feedback from the community on the following items
as a result of the discussion of policy proposals 2003-1 & 2003-2 at the
Memphis public policy meeting.  We invite you to comment on the following
items.

Thank you,

Andrew Dul
ARIN AC


1. Should ARIN require an ABUSE POC for all ORGs that are registered in the
database?

2. What benefit do you see from requiring ORGs to have an ABUSE POC are
there any bad side-effects.

3. The current production database and whois output support the ABUSE POC.
Are there any changes needed to either educate the community about this
feature or the whois output so that the ABUSE POC will be more widely used.

4. When contact information is found to be "bad" should ARIN flag that data
as invalid and make that data available to the public via whois?  

5. What actions should ARIN take after the data is found to be "bad"?