[arin-ppml] IPv4 Transfer Policy Change to Keep Whois Accurate

[Tom Vest]

On May 13, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi Tom,
> 
>> What definition of "accuracy in Whois" do you have in mind in this context? Can you provide an example of the absolute minimum set of whois parameters and parameter values (e.g., specific whois contact details | >degree of verifiability / fidelity of those details ) that would be consistent with your definition of "accuracy in Whois"?
> 
> Whois has an underlying justification in the requirement for uniqueness of registration for each allocated netblock. I think Whois should list the current owner of the routing rights to the netblock and have valid contact information. If it had those things, I would consider it to be accurate.
> 
> 
>> And why exactly do are we placing such a high value on "accuracy in Whois" anyway? From your point of view, what are the requirements|purposes|uses of whois that justify the considerable investments in time and >effort that are required to maintain Whois data quality at this level?
> 
> It provides an element of routing authority that is used by network operators to decide whether their customer had the authority to route these addresses. It can also be used for abuse notification when the only information on the abuser is his ip address.
> 
>> Though it might seem like a simple question, the range of possible answers is vast. Would your own criteria for whois "accuracy" and "purpose" be satisfied, for example, by a number resource registry that maintains >100% accurate contact records sufficient for the purpose of registry fee collection, but nothing more than that -- and only shares those few details with duly authorized LEAa and individuals who have been explicitly >granted access by individual registrants themselves?
> 
> No, the registry or registries would also have to ensure uniqueness, not just accurate records for fee collection.


I'm clipping here because this is a critical point of clarification, and this exchange is already so long and convoluted (mea culpa) that I wouldn't want it to pass unnoticed by anyone who's still reading. When I have more to say, I'll revert to the full version for the sake of continuity...

So, I'll ask again using your suggested revision:

Would your own criteria for whois "accuracy" and "purpose" be satisfied by a number resource registry that did the following and nothing more:

(1) Registry maintains 100% accurate contact records THAT ARE SUFFICIENT TO UNIQUELY ASSOCIATE INDIVIDUAL NUMBER RECORDS with a set of contact information that includes (1a) "a name," plus (1b) any current/working method of payment sufficient to cover recurring registry service fees. 

(2)  Registry maintains such information on file continuously, but shares it ONLY with duly authorized LEAa and individuals who have been explicitly granted access by individual registrants themselves?

Yes or no? If no, please feel free to edit yourself so that the description clearly reveals which features of the current RIR-based whois+registration are excluded.

Thanks, 

TV