[ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-4: Purpose and scope of ARIN Whois Directory

[Michael.Dillon at radianz.com]

>> 4. Any other organizations may elect to be listed in the whois
>>    directory as long as they make the guarantee detailed in item 3.

>I think that "Any" is two vague.  How about something along the lines of:
>4.  When an ARIN resource is reassigned or reallocated to an
>organization, that organizations contact information may be published
>in the whois directory, so long as they make the guarantee detailed in
>item 3.

Perhaps I should not have used "Any"

Any other organization which has received a reassignment or reallocation
of ARIN address space may elect to be listed in the whois
directory as long as they make the guarantee detailed in item 3.

I think that once a proposal is accepted by the members, the AC
are free to tinker with the wording to clear up ambiguities like this.

>> 5. All contacts listed in the whois directory will be contacted
>While I agree with the intent of this statement, I think it might be 
better
>expressed as:

Again, my main intent was to require ARIN to regularly check
the data validity and tell us where those checks were not
being promptly validated. And I wanted to do this without specifying
any details of how this would be done so as not to get into
micro-managing ARIN staff through policy. If the AC can fix
up wording to be clearer and less ambiguous, I'm all for it.

>> 7. The records mentioned in item 6 will not identify the organization 
or
>>    individual receiving the address block or their exact location. 
These
>>    records will only indicate an organizational type, the nearest
>>    municipality providing postal service to the end user, 
state/province
>>    and country.

>I have serious problems with this, and, I think paragraph 7 should be
>stricken from this policy.  I think that the combination of paragraph 6
>and paragraph 4 more than adequately addresses this issue without any
>need for preventing good data from being available in paragraph 7.

I don't understand your objections here.If we strike paragraph
7 then we have nothing to specify what is in these entries. An ISP
could comply simply by listing the CIDR block that was allocated
and no other information at all.

This is an area where I think we need to be explicit and
unambiguous. 6 and 7 do not refer to contact info, but to
data published by ISPs that says, "here is the extent of our
network", "this is where we are connecting sites to the global
public Internet and how big they are". I'd actually like to see 
the ISPs get together and agree on some notation for these entries
that would allow for better statistical analyses than we have 
today.

You might want to reread points c), g), i) and j) in the notes
attached to the proposed policy wording.

--Michael Dillon