[arin-ppml] Use of the specified transfer policy

[John Curran]

On Feb 15, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> 
> I'm sure the address holder is - but the question was, is the person who
> submitted the report also involved?  That may NOT be an address holder it
> may just be a guy out on the street there who happens to stumble across something.

They often cannot be involved at the level desired, as the information that
we receive is still subject to NDA.  

> But, is the person who filed the report informed of any action?  Or do they just
> have to keep looking at the summary reports and trying to guess if their complaint
> was acted on or not?

We've taken to breaking down each report and any action taken on the
reports, but have not been sending updates to the reporter.  I will 
change this; there's no reason for you to have to poll for report
changes.

> The summary reports do not serve as adequate examples.  Here are some
> recent selections:
> 
> 20100721-F639 ISP assigning IPv4 space without justification Section 12 audit conducted
> 
> So, what happened?  What were the audit results?  Was the ISP doing this
> or not?
> 

> 20100814-F655 Report that 2 orgs are assigning IP addresses without justification Section 12 audits conducted on both
> 
> Results????

If it does not say revocation, then the audit showed the assignments 
were warranted.

> I also would love a bit more detail on this one:
> 
> 20100819-F657 Report of spam emanating from org’s /15 Investigated, found justification meets ARIN policy requirements.
> 
> If that was snowshoe spamming and it fits in the NRPM then we definitely
> need to modify the NRPM.

I will look into this and see if there is a generic case to be added to 
the Policy Experience report for San Juan. 

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN