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

[Glenn Wiltse]

   In light of the legal points that made up the bulk of the objections
to this policy proposal, my concerns about how and/or when you would
allow ARIN to reclaim space based on some deffinition of 'non
responsive'... It would seem my concerns are way overshadowed by
the legal problems created by allowing some reassignment data to become
private... However I want to make it clear that I still have objections
to other parts of this proposal, perticularly section 3.2.1.

  My opinon remains that the only resaon for removal of data from the
APID or SWIP is if it is proven to be fraudulent. Along the same lines
the only grounds for any attempts to 'reclaim' ARIN resources based on
data that's in this APID and/or SWIP, is if it should be proven to be
fraudulent.

   So please do not attempt to push this policy though by just removing
the refferances to private data... That is not the only problem with
this proposal.

Glenn Wiltse



On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Jeff Williams wrote:

> Glenn and all,
>
>   Good point.  Yet this fictitious school you use as a very reasonable
> example still should have valid and contactable contact information
> avaliable/listed for their assigned Ipv4 resources.
>
>   It is not reasonably conceivable that no contact can be made
> for a period of longer than 15 days IMHO, unless there is a
> death of the contact person in that period, or that person is
> so ill as to be unable to respond.  In even in both of these
> special conditions, and alternative or backup contact person
> should be available...
>
> Glenn Wiltse wrote:
>
> >   Actualy 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.
> >
> > 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.
> > >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
>     Pierre Abelard
>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
>  Registered Email addr with the USPS
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:4264856a12311857916320!
>
>