[arin-ppml] New Version of ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement
hannigan at gmail.com
Tue May 17 09:58:13 EDT 2011
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:46 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> On 5/15/11 14:12 CDT, Chris Grundemann wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 18:41, Scott Leibrand<scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>>> How would you feel about striking the following sentence in 12.6?: "If
>>> progress of resource returns or record corrections is not visible within
>>> sixty (60) days after correspondence with ARIN began, ARIN will cease
>>> providing reverse DNS services for the resources in question."
>>> The preceding sentence says that "ARIN may cease providing reverse DNS
>>> services" at any time after 30 days, and the requirement that ARIN
>>> *will* cease providing reverse DNS after 60 days seems like it would
>>> ARIN's ability to do the right thing if an organization is cooperating...
>> I think that the last sentence already provides this flexibility to
>> ARIN staff: "ARIN shall negotiate a longer term with the organization
>> if ARIN believes the organization is working in good faith to
>> substantially restore compliance and has a valid need for additional
>> time to renumber out of the affected blocks." Do you disagree?
>> At this point, I think there is enough support for this idea that we
>> should move the current text forward to draft status and discuss it in
>> Philly (and on the list before then of course). Those who have not
>> spoken up regarding this proposal are highly encouraged to do so.
>> (Primary Shepherd, ARIN-prop-126)
> 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.
How did the shepherds determine that there is a real problem that this
solves and that it requires a codified solution?
Can you demonstrate "general support" and why general support is not
anything more than disinterest? I'm curious about that since I can't
see the support you describe, especially support that would insist
that we continue to haggle over this. There are occasions where
proposals should die and not continue to be subject to repeated edits
to try and "find" an audience.
More information about the ARIN-PPML