[ppml] Policy Proposal -- Eliminate Lame Server policy

Hyunseog Ryu HRyu at norlight.com
Wed Sep 12 10:45:45 EDT 2007

I'm against for this proposal with same reason. 


Hyunseog Ryu
Senior Network Engineer
Norlight Telecommunications, Inc./Cinergy Communications. Q-Comm Company
Applications Engineering
13935 Bishops Drive
Brookfield, WI 53005 
Phone. +1-262-792-7965
Fax. +1-262-792-7733
Email. hryu at norlight.com

Brian Dickson <briand at ca.afilias.info> 
Sent by: ppml-bounces at arin.net
09/12/2007 09:07 AM

Member Services <info at arin.net>
ppml at arin.net
Fax to

Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal -- Eliminate Lame Server policy

I oppose the proposal. Argument on why follows:
>>                               Recent PPML discussion has called 
attention to the
>>                               fact that lame DNS delegations are more 
an operational
>>                               issue than one of policy.  As such, the 
existing lame
>>                               delegation policy should be removed from 
the NRPM
>>                               to remove the resultant confusion.  This 
is not meant
>>                               to prevent ARIN staff from taking 
reasonable action
>>                               WRT DNS operational issues related to 
resources issued
>>                               by ARIN, but, such action can be covered 
by staff
>>                               operational guidelines and is not within 
the scope
>>                               of Address Policy.
The point of having policy documents which are public, is not to inform 
ARIN staff what they're
allowed to do, but to inform recipients of ARIN-provided services what 
*they're* allowed to do.

It is important that Section 7 remain part of the policy document for 
this reason, more than anything

Without explicit rules governing expected behaviour, the problem space 
can only be expected
to mushroom. Why this would likely happen, includes scofflaws, lazy 
administrators, as well as
"bad actors", the latter of which are dwarfed in volume by the first two.

Anything which increases the potential workload for enforcement, 
regardless of intent, is a big
step backwards.

And *that* is why I oppose the proposal.

Brian Dickson
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
Public Policy
Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml Please contact the ARIN Member 
Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20070912/7a009f33/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list