[ppml] Policy Proposal 2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul
owen at delong.com
Mon Apr 18 18:12:14 EDT 2005
All ARIN policies, especially WRT reclamation and such can, by definition
only apply to direct allocations and assignments. The only thing ARIN
can do to affect downstreams is make it part of the conditions of the
allocation that the recipient enforce the same rules on the recipients
of reassignments. As such, I don't see how or why you think that is
not the case with the current proposal.
--On Monday, April 18, 2005 4:33 PM -0400 Glenn Wiltse <iggy at merit.edu>
> In my senerio, there are alternate contacts, they are the upstreem
> provider's POCs. There should be no need to place an additional POC
> on theorganizationn 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>
>> > 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
>> Why should the world live with indefinite periods of abuse?
>> > 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.
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML