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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Apr 18 16:32:42 EDT 2005


However, Glenn, in that case, the fact that we can contact you should be
listed as an additional contact in that reassignment.  In that case, ARIN
would contact you and find that information out, and, under the proposed
policy, nothing would happen.

The point is that if _ALL_ of the contacts for a resource remain unreachable
for an extended period of time (3 months seems more than reasonable),
there needs to be some way to address that.

Nothing prevents you from listing your ISP as one of the contacts in the
reassignment data.

Owen


--On Monday, April 18, 2005 11:28 AM -0400 Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu>
wrote:

> 
>   In Michigan, and I'm sure elsewhere... there are Speical Function
> Special Purpose schools that do not belong to ISDs. I know at least one
> where the staff is more or less a husband and wife who operate the school.
> 
>    The SFSP school is really just one example, there could be others
> where POCs for reassigned resources could be un-responsive for long
> periods of time, yet the data is not nessasarly invalid, or fraudulent.
> 
>   As the ISP providing service to some of these very small schools and
> other tiny originization or individuals, we often want the first line of
> contact for these types of customers to be someone close to our customers
> LAN. We want the information public...  We consider it to be valid data,
> and want you to try and resolve any issues with them whenever possible. If
> you can not make contact with a POC that we've listed with a reassignmet,
> then you are weclome to contact us, and we will respond. Furthermore, if
> you do find some data that is inaccurate for one of our reassignments, we
> will correct it.
> 
>   The contacts for a ISP's customer(reassignments of ARIN resources) are
> not nessasarly inaccurate if they do not respond in some fixed amount of
> time.
> 
>   Glenn Wiltse
> 
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 Michael.Dillon at radianz.com 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.
>> 
>> There's another good reason why it is bad policy to publish
>> contact info for every organization receiving an address
>> block. That may have been a good idea in 1990 when every
>> organization receiving addresses was an active network
>> operator. But in today's world, where most organizations
>> receiving addresses are little more than consumers, this
>> is a BAD policy. ARIN should never publish any contact
>> information for an organization which does not explicitly
>> agree with ARIN that its contact information should be published.
>> 
>> In your example above, the ISP providing service to this
>> school would be a far more appropriate contact point
>> than the school itself. But archaic blanket policies
>> do not allow for cases like this.
>> 
>> --Michael Dillon
>> 
>> 
>> !DSPAM:4263be86858437312325!
>> 
>> 



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050418/499ebc9f/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list