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

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 2, 2009, at 10:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> 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.

I think that the number of POCs that update their records annually is
low enough that this would not be a significant savings.

> 2. Don't ping POCs which have been updated or have responded to this
> or another query within the past 3 years.
>
You're again arguing for a 3-5 year refresh rate. However, this was  
discussed
quite a bit in prior proposals and such, and, I think there is general  
community
consensus around a 1 year refresh rate.

> 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.
>
ARIN staff are an intelligent group of people who
can and do develop good operational practices with general guidance
from the community in the form of policy. If you feel staff needs a more
specific operational practice in this area, I think that would be  
appropriate
to submit to the ACSP. I do not think that staff would determine a POC
to be abandoned based solely on a bad email address. I think email is
the first line of contact to identify POCs that may require follow-up  
via
phone and/or postal contact.

Owen