[arin-ppml] New Version of ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 11:47 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> I support the the intended result of this proposal and this is text is an
> improvement.

I too like the sentiment behind the proposal but... two thoughts:

1. ARIN should have fairly broad leeway to determine when a registrant
just isn't acting in good faith to return to compliance. 30 to 60 days
is not very broad. If you want to set a minimum of 30 days before ARIN
takes action, that's fine, but don't set a max. Such "zero tolerance"
policies have a history of making small problems big.

2. When ARIN determines that an organization isn't acting in good
faith to return to compliance, don't pussy-foot around with little
escalations like suspending RDNS. Registration revoked. Boom. ARIN
will hold the addresses for the normal inactivity period and if you
want to give the registrant one final chance, give them first priority
to reapply (during that inactivity period) for as much of the revoked
address space as they can justify under current policy.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004