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

[Scott Leibrand]

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 21:46, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>> Chris,
>>
>> In reviewing the responses to the current text I don't think this text is
>> ready yet.  I think there is general support for the intent of this policy.
>> But there seems to be support for the change Scott is suggesting, I think it
>> is a good suggestion too.
>
> Thanks David, I agree that further discussion is warranted, hence my
> stated intentions (moving the proposal forward as a draft for further
> discussion). Folks that are opposed to the intent of this policy
> should speak up if they think the discussion is complete and
> abandonment is more appropriate (I believe one person has thus far).
>
> For everyone's reference; the substantive changes are specific to
> section 12.6 of the NRPM and include:
> 1) Lowering the minimum time given to organizations that are out of
> compliance from six months to 90 days.
> 2) Adding the ability for ARIN to remove rDNS before revoking space
> with a minimum of 30 days given to orgs to respond.
> 3) The current proposal text requires staff to remove rDNS after an
> org is unresponsive for 60 days. (removing this requirement has been
> discussed with no objections)
> * The proposal retains the final sentence of that section which allows
> staff to provide more time where appropriate.
>
> While I do not want to rush text changes, it would be very informative
> to know which of the three changes are supported and/or opposed.

FWIW, I'm agnostic on #1, in support of #2, and would like to remove
requirement #3.

I think there's another aspect to this proposal that's worth
highlighting: it adds the phrase "update reassignment information or"
to 12.4, which would then read: "Organizations found by ARIN to be out
of compliance with current ARIN policy shall be required to update
reassignment information or return resources as needed to bring them
into (or reasonably close to) compliance."

At the San Juan meeting, we had some lunch topic tables, and one of
the topics was this proposal.  Several interested folks attended and
discussed the proposal.  The main concern I recall being expressed was
from some law enforcement folks, who were worried that as we move to
an IPv6-only world, where organizations don't have to come back for
new space every year or two, there will be less and less incentive to
keep whois reassignment information up to date.  This proposal is an
attempt to make sure that there is at least some ability for ARIN to
enforce existing whois policy once we reach IPv6 steady state.

So, if anyone has any thoughts on how whois should work, and how we
should balance the interests of the community in accurate reassignment
information in whois against the interests of organizations in doing
less work, now would be a good time to speak up.  :-)

-Scott