[ppml] comments on 2005-2
Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz
Fri Apr 15 16:27:18 EDT 2005
At 16:03 -0400 4/15/05, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>As I said to a previous poster, it's just a label. A flag that a
>particular step in the process has been passed. I suppose we could
>add a definition, but it would be "someone who has failed the first
>round of contacting is classified as suspended".
Then don't use the word "suspended," perhaps "labeled" (or "marked,"
or "noted as unresponsive"). Suspended has connotes restrictions are
put in place. ("Suspended license.")
>If we replaced "Offenders" with "Resource holders" is it acceptable? The
>"offense" was failure to respond, which I agree was poorly implied.
Or registrant...what ever is appropriate. The term "offender" made
me go back and look for the definition of the offense.
>I disagree. Let's say an ISP lists a phone number, and it's
>disconnected. I should be able to e-mail ARIN and say "I tried to
>call ISP xyz and their phone is disconnected, so their contact
>information is invalid." Under the proposal ARIN would be required
>to put them in the queue for verification to see if the information
>can be updated. That's far more useful than finding the disconnected
>number but simply having to wait a week/month/year for ARIN to naturally
>There's no confidentiality disclosure there. ARIN is providing no
>information back to the reporter. All I wanted to do was give staff
>an out so if someone tried to get an ISP reverified once a day just
>to be a PITA ARIN staff could just ignore that person.
The context of my comment is that the policy states:
# If a third party submits reports of the inability to make contact
# that are subsequently disproven, ARIN may choose to ignore
# reports from specific companies, people, e-mail addresses, or
# any other classification means as appropriate.
If ARIN does not respond to the party reporting, what does it matter
if ARIN (staff?) chooses to ignore a reporting party that is known
for "crying wolf?"
I.e., I am questioning the need for the quoted paragraph.
>I have no objection to IRIS, and indeed would like to see it added.
>That said, I think it's probably too late to consider IRIS for this
>meeting. If the proposal passes, we can present one at the next
>meeting to add IRIS to the list.
At what point is it too late? I asked about adding IRIS in this
message a month ago:
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was saying.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML