[arin-ppml] (no subject)

Steve Bertrand steve at ibctech.ca
Fri Jan 29 00:26:13 EST 2010

Steve Bertrand wrote:
> George Bonser wrote:
>>>> One might also consider the merits of this "distributed management"
>>>> approach to maintaining whois as a useful mechanism for preserving
>>> the
>>>> openness and transparency of ARIN policy outcomes. The more that
>> such
>>>> (by current convention, "public") contact information remains
>>> publicly
>>>> accessible, the less ARIN members have to rely on ARIN staff to
>>> produce
>>>> summary answers to sensitive policy questions using
>>>> non-sharable/non-disclosable member data. In a world where virtually
>>>> every important institution is at the center of a permanent debate
>>>> between defenders of "x is generally good" and partisans of "x is
>>>> hopelessly corrupt"  -- with the vast majority of stakeholders
>> likely
>>> to
>>>> be in the "trust but verify" center -- seems like it would be
>> prudent
>>> to
>>>> weigh the costs and benefits very carefully before eliminating the
>>>> public data resources that make such independent
>>> analysis/verification
>>>> efforts possible.
>>> ... ^ what he said.
>> More openness is better.  If a provider knowingly provides incorrect
>> info, they should be at risk of losing the IP space.  The addresses do
>> not belong to them, they are entrusted with them by the community.
> Yes. IIRC, the NRPM refers to the term 'license'.
>> I would possibly support a proposal that would eliminate SWIP/RWHOIS
>> requirements for networks that are announced ONLY from the provider's
>> network.  
> I'm not in favour of this. It would cause undue overhead
> administratively, and would force someone (possibly ARIN) to validate
> this technically.
> If it's ge /29, it's SWIP'ed. Period.

...I'm glad I'm not writing prefix lists just now. I'm sure you know
what was meant.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list