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

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 16:05:02 EDT 2008

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Kevin Kargel <kkargel at polartel.com> wrote:
> 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.

I thought about this in two ways.  First, I considered vacation or
other time off.  Then I shortened the time when I asked myself the
question; what if I needed to contact this POC for a real issue?
Would waiting 6 to 8 weeks be reasonable?

I am not opposed to lengthening the response time at all, as long as
both aspects are considered.  I would like to do more than to just get
whois better than it is now, although I agree that initially that is
probably all that is needed.

I did not want to get to complicated but maybe abuse contacts should
have one response time set and others a longer allowance (I don't
really like that idea though).  Or perhaps the time should only be
specified as being /equal for all/ and then let ARIN staff adjust it
year to year, based on the number of false positives from the years


> -----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

Chris Grundemann

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list