[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC’s

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> In any case, given the data now at hand, do you support or oppose
> the policy?

Hi Owen,

Support the general idea. Oppose as written.

The systemic costs have not been adequately quantified or considered.
Relatively trivial edits could and should be used to reduce the cost
with little or no damage to the proposal's effectiveness.

Edits I would make if it were my proposal include:

1. Don't ping POCs for which at least one attached resource has been
updated in the past 3 to 5 years. If some other behavior demonstrates
a high probability that the POC is valid, there's no need to burn more
of the POC's time.

2. Don't ping POCs which have been updated or have responded to this
or another query within the past 3 years.

3. Close the gap before "If ARIN staff deems a POC to be abandoned."
The proposal specifies no criteria for making such a determination. Is
staff intended to infer that a POC with a bad email address is
abandoned even if the phone number or postal address are still valid?
Or does this proposal direct staff to call and send postal mail when
the email bounces? The latter would be a huge direct cost to ARIN,
especially on the first sweep that hits the legacy registrations.



On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Aaron <dudepron at gmail.com> wrote:
> That assumes that each POC is unique. There are several organizations that
> have multiple listings so that number is probably much less.

I make no representations regarding the 223k number. I copied it from
the only post I saw which attempted to quantify the number of POCs in
the system.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004