[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul

[Glenn Wiltse]

   In my senerio, there are alternate contacts, they are the upstreem
provider's POCs. There should be no need to place an addtional POC
on the orginization that gets the reassigned resources, since it's
already clear that the upstreem provider is ultimately responsible.

   I never said anything about living with unlimited periods of abuse.
I wouldn't be willing to accept that.

    The current policy proposal doesn't differentiate between 'non
responsive' POCs that receive direct ARIN resources, and those that do
not. If this policy proposal only applied to POCs tied to ORGs that get
direct allocations or assignments from ARIN I would not argue the point.

    GLenn Wiltse

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:

>
>
> --On Monday, April 18, 2005 9:27 AM -0400 Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >   Actually I think there are ligitamate reasons that a POC may not be
> > responsive for as many as 3 months. The policy proposal is unclear if this
> > must be consecutive months or not, but this too is somewhat irrelevant.
> > Consider a small special purpose school that may not operate for the whole
> > summer.
> >
> Such a school should have at lesat one POC which will accept responsibility
> for addressing abuse complaints while they are closed.  If they have to
> contract with their usptream to achieve this, so be it.  Really, what is
> the likelihood such a school would have a direct ARIN assignment/allocation?
>
> Why should the world live with indefinite periods of abuse?
>
> Owen
>
> > Glenn Wiltse
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> >   Let me get back to a specific part of this policy proposal that I
> > don't
> >> > like...
> >> >
> >> >  "Third parties may report the inability to make contact with a party
> >> >  via information in the APID. In this case ARIN shall attempt the
> >> > contact verification procedure for that contact immediately. If a
> >> > response is received, ARIN should document that a problem occurred,
> >> > and the response from the resource holder. Offenders who fail to
> >> > respond to third parties more than 4 times per month for three months
> >> > may have their resources reclaimed at the discretion of ARIN staff." I
> >> > belive that there are
> >> >
> >> >    I suggest to you that there can be valid re-assignments of ARIN
> >> > resources, that may for a varitey of reasons become non-responsive for
> >> > preiods of a month or longer, and should not constitute anything close
> >> > to being grounds for reclaimation or maybe not even be grounds for
> >> > 'suspension'(depending on how that is defined).  Consider something
> >> > such as a seasonal business, or a very small busines where possibly
> >> > the entire staff is gone for a month or more. (possibly a small family
> >> > based business, etc...) Well, you say ARIN staff can use there
> >> > 'discretion' to determin that this is something that doesn't
> >> > constitute a offense.  I say that there shouldn't be room for ARIN
> >> > staffs descretion... The only reason for reclaiming resources based on
> >> > 'inaccurate' or 'non responsive' contacts, is FRAUD, which is legaly
> >> > defined.
> >> >
> >> And it doesn't... It requires 4 times per month for three months.
> >> There's no
> >> legitimate reason for a valid POC for a network resource to be
> >> unreachable for 3 months solid.  A Seasonal business should have a
> >> responsive backup POC from their upstream or such.  Otherwise, the rest
> >> of the world is expected to live with their resources being abused while
> >> they aren't looking?
> >> I think that is bad for the world.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >> --
> >> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
>