JOHN at egh.com
Wed Mar 31 20:04:31 EDT 2010
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> >>>> I'd like to hear feedback from other folks on the tradeoff between
> >> permanent allocations vs. requiring renewal to maintain whois database
> >> consistency...
> >>> Permanent bad. Renewal good.
> >> I support.
> >> Not much thought has to go into Owen's comment to know that it is in the
> >> best interest of everyone, especially for the long term.
> >> Steve
> >> _______________________________________________
> > I concur that renewal is necessary, though renewal requirements do not
> > necessarily need to include money, data refresh could be sufficient.
> > Kevin
> I disagree. Without fees, data-refresh is often responded to out of
> rote without thought or consideration.
But isn't the fact that it is responded to at all significant? I.E., email
to a dead address won't be responded to.
And even a valid, correct response could become obsolete the next day
when the POCs arrive at their offices and discover their jobs have been
outsourced and the PHBs are clueless. :-(
It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, so I don't think in
and of it self, this is a major argument for fees or against ULA-C.
Aren't fees supposed to just cover expenses, which I think would be pretty
minimal for ULA-C, in the same ballpark as domain registration fees,
(which are often charged for a 5 or 10 year period to reduce overhead)?
And my last question, are we even allowed to talk about this on
this list? :-)
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
More information about the ARIN-PPML