[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Jan 11 17:46:20 EST 2011

On Jan 11, 2011, at 12:01 PM, David Farmer wrote:

> On 1/11/11 12:57 CST, Jack Bates wrote:
> ...
>> I dislike the changes, as they promote ARIN seeking to audit or take
>> action more swiftly, as it's much easier to break rDNS than it is to
>> revoke address space. If the matter is serious enough, they should just
>> revoke the space; not deal with rDNS.
> I too am seriously concerned about using rDNS as leverage to gain compliance.  If keeping Whois up to date is a real issue, then revoke the resources or apply a financial fine to the offender.  Turning off rDNS is equally likely to create an operation impact for someone else as it is for the offending party, therefore penalizing the wrong party. Using rDNS as an enforcement mechanism is likely to have unintended consequences.
You do realize that revocation from an ARIN perspective means:
	1.	Remove the whois entry
	2.	Remove the rDNS delegation
	3.	Make appropriate modifications to billing, if any.

> As written I'm opposed to the policy as it is likely to create operation impact on wrong party.
I'm not sure how revocation is less impactful than rDNS removal. Care to elaborate on your
thinking here?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list