[ppml] Policy Proposal: Modification to Reverse Mapping Policy

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> > > Why should ARIN give out referalls to servers that
> > > *intentionally* timeout?
> 
> > Because ARIN's customer asks them to do this.
> 
> That can justify providing services to a spammer, after all, 
> they ask you to do so.

ARIN is fully justified in providing number allocations and in-addr.arpa
services to spammers since nothing in ARIN policy give ARIN the right to
refuse such services. In fact, ARIN policy does not allow ARIN to
consider business models at all.

> > > Why should ARIN be a party in wasting other people's time and 
> > > resources?
> 
> > Because the people whose resources are being wasted are 
> customers of 
> > the organization which intentionally has their servers timeout.
> 
> Not so. I may or may not be an ARIN customer if I'm reverse 
> resolving an IP address assigned by ARIN.

Now you are saying that an ARIN customer is hurting you and you want
ARIN to go and hurt them back because you yourself are unable to
retaliate. That is not within the scope of ARIN's charter, and in fact,
not within the scope of most police forces.

> > That's right, I said CORRECT ERROR. I didn't design the 
> application, 
> > but that is how it works. The solution was to put back the lame 
> > delegation in the .com zone, and then to transfer the 
> registration to 
> > another registrar who will ensure that the lame delegation is left 
> > untouched in the future.
> 
> So long as the address space involved doesn't connect to 
> people who aren't in on this scheme, I have no problem. If 
> they do, this is simply an abuse of the cooperation necessary 
> to make the Internet work.

It is an abuse of cooperation when you do not follow the principle of
being liberal about what you accept. Instead, you want ARIN to force
others to be conservative about what they send. This is not a
cooperative stance to take.

> It is morally in the same category 
> as a business model based on spam. You make other people do 
> extra work simply because you can, even though it's outside 
> the scope of the implied agreement that connects them to you.

I could claim that your proposals are morally in the same category as
genocide but I won't because I cannot prove that claim anymore than you
can prove yours.

> Though I do agree that this is sufficiently minor that it 
> shouldn't policed by ARIN.

Then it clearly is not in the same category as spam which is a major
problem on the Internet today.

> Let me make it clear that I don't think it's sensible to try 
> to create a policy that can, by robotic mindless operation 
> perfectly handle every situation. However, ARIN should police 
> its delegations at least minimally to curtail what is actual abuse.

You just said that it shouldn't be policed by ARIN!? 

ARIN is not a police force. ARIN doesn't carry a big stick. ARIN's main
tool is talking softly. In order to have a workable policy, we need to
approach it with talking softly in mind. ARIN can and should keep its
database clean. ARIN can and should maintain contacts with the
appropriate people in organizations who use its services. Here there is
a gap since ARIN currently does not maintain contact with DNS
administrators. ARIN could and should educate the organizations using
its services, and the general Internet public. Here there is also a gap
since ARIN does not inform DNS admins when it finds full or partial
lameness. ARIN does not record the results of its lameness survey in the
public whois directory. These are areas that policy can and should
address. 

--Michael Dillon