[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Annual WHOIS POC Validation

Kevin Kargel kkargel at polartel.com
Mon Aug 25 15:59:19 EDT 2008


Even 180 days would not be excessive considering we are dealing with a
situation that has existed for decades already.  Another six months is not
going to tip the canoe. 

-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Dan Sorenson
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 2:44 PM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Annual WHOIS POC Validation

I'm curious as to why 14 days was chosen, and the mechanism used to update
the field in the event that the POC did not respond within that time-frame.

Thinking out loud, I suspect there are a fair number of entries that point
to a single contact e-mail address (as opposed to a group address).
With many employers offering up to six weeks of vacation time, where a
person might reasonably be expected to remain out of contact, two weeks
might prove to generate a fair number of false positives that would have to
be later remedied manually.

For a process that only runs once a year, surely six or eight weeks would
not impose an excessive burden either on ARIN or the POC's.

  - Dan
 
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3107 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080825/c59753d7/attachment-0001.bin>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list