[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Whois Authentication Alternatives
michael at rancid.berkeley.edu
Wed Aug 20 14:40:01 EDT 2008
On 08/20/08 11:25, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming that this proposal presumes that
> legacy holders who have NOT signed an RSA will not be
> permitted to modify their whois data, unless they have
> gone through this "authentication process"?
Yes, if the "Whois Integrity Policy" and the policy are adopted.
> I wasn't aware that legacy holders, today, are not permitted
> to update their whois data with ARIN unless they have signed
> a Legacy RSA. Is that true?
It is not currently true. It *appears* that it would be made true if
the "Whois Integrity Policy" were adopted.
> I am not happy with the verbage:
> "...This proposal assumes the existence of some form of
> policy such as that proposed by the "Whois Integrity Policy Proposal..."
Are you not happy with the verbiage or are you not happy with the
> The proposer is asking that we consider a "meta" policy proposal,
> that is, a proposal that applies to a proposal under consideration.
> I disagree with this.
I wouldn't call it a meta proposal, but your general impression is correct.
> I would prefer the proposer of this proposal should instead work with the
> authors of the current proposals under consideration, such as
> the "Whois Integrity Policy Proposal" to incorporate his ideas
> into the existing proposals, rather than submitting a meta-proposal.
> Or if those authors refuse to do that, then he can submit a
> competing proposal that does the same thing that an existing
> proposal does, plus his modifications.
The proposal was submitted in order to express language that would allow
me, and perhaps others, to support Heather's proposal. I'd actually
argue that the proposals be combined, but I don't know Heather's view on
this and do not wish to speak for her. (She has not yet responded to
the thread on her proposal, so I don't know if she's aware of the
comments.) If Heather wants to take language from my proposal and
incorporate it into hers, then I'll happily withdraw my proposal.
The intent of my proposal was to give the AC additional language that
would make a general whois integrity proposal more palatable for legacy
holders who are trying to work out issues with their GCs and the LRSA.
I leave it up to the AC to ultimately decide with to do with it, but I
think we'd all like to see input from PPML, as you have done.
More information about the ARIN-PPML