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

[Lee Dilkie]

Hi Ted,


Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 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.)
>
>   
>> ..
>
> 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
>   

If you read my original email on the subject you'll see that I proposed
to simply directly staff to establish the validity of a POC. period.
Drop the email thing. Staff will obviously use email as a first resort
and escalate beyond that but why specify email in the policy? (in other
words, I'm in the other group, the "too narrow")

But I still don't get the "why" of this. This seems to be a lot of
work(and money) and somewhat risky if a false positive (false invalid)
occurs. What's the purpose?

-lee
.