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

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Dilkie [mailto:Lee at dilkie.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 6:43 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'Stephen Sprunk'; 'ARIN PPML'
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify 
> Invalid WHOIS POC's
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> >  
> >   
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> IMHO, that is a gross misrepresentation of what Lee said.  
> I agree, 
> >> as I believe Lee does, that all POC records should have 
> valid email 
> >> addresses.
> >>     
> >
> > OK then, would you be willing to support a policy proposal 
> that ONLY 
> > stated all POC's must have valid e-mail addresses?  Nothing 
> else about 
> > validation or any of that?  Just a simple statement that 
> all POCs in 
> > the whois database must have valid e-mail addresses?
> >
> > Ted
> >
> >   
> I don't have a problem with a policy that POC's have a valid 
> email address (and I presume you really mean 
> valid/reachable/respondable).
> However, I do have a problem with using the current POC email 
> addresses, as they currently stand, to make the determination 
> of reachability or not. 

That is NOT what the policy proposal states.  Please re-read it.

Nowhere in the policy proposal is ARIN staff directed
to make a determination if a POC is completely and permanently
abandoned or otherwise illegitimate AS A RESULT of a failure
of the POC to respond to e-mail.

Instead, the directive to ARIN staff to determine if a POC is
completely and permanently abandoned or otherwise illegitimate
is open-ended.  The policy directs ARIN staff to make this
determination on an annual basis, period.  The policy also
directs ARIN staff to mark unresponsive POC e-mail addresses
in the WHOIS database on an annual basis.

The proposal was CAREFULLY crafted to SPECIFICALY NOT REQUIRE
ARIN staff to make a validity determination based on the
results of e-mail. 

Obviously, since both of these are annual validations (ie:
POC validation and e-mail validation) there's synergy in
doing them together at the same time - which is why the
policy covers them both.  But you will see that the tie-in
is not mandated if you re-read the policy.  (it may be
strongly implied depending on your interpretation of the
policy proposal, of course.  My interpretation is that it
IS strongly implied.  But, a lawyer would almost certainly
tell you that implied policy has no legal validity.)

> To determine if a POC (a human being) 
> is reachable, one must use all the addressing modes 
> (specifically, postal, as that carries legal
> weight) to attempt to establish contact *and inform the POC 
> of this newly enforced requirement to have a valid and 
> reachable/respondable email address in whois*. I think that 
> only then you can have a fair policy.
> 

Specifying contact methods in the policy proposal was tried the last
time this was introduced and it was widely objected by the
list membership as unnecessary interference between policy and
operations.

Lee, it seems one group on the list objects to the policy as
being too narrow, and another group objects to it as being not
narrow enough.  (the group your in)  However, the group objecting to
it being too narrow was making objections to things that were
actually present in that proposal.  Your group that's objecting to
it as being not narrow enough, are objecting to things that
your reading into the policy, that technically aren't actually there.

Ted