[arin-ppml] Clarify /29 assignment identification requirement

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Sat May 5 12:25:46 EDT 2012

On 5/5/12, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On May 5, 2012, at 8:47 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Heck, you can infer from just the list of plan durations and end
>> dates. If there are annual subscriptions but no cluster around
>> Christmas and no late-summer dip then something is odd. And you don't
>> need the slightest bit of PII to check.
> Verification (of address block utilization) via inference is certainly an
> innovative approach, and if your policy proposal version 2.0 is adopted,
> we will do our best to perform such for address blocks whose utilization
> level is significantly based on customers with smaller than /29
> reassignments.

Hi John,

I would argue that ARIN already verifies by inference. It may be
semantics, but without direct evidence of contact (copy of photo ID,
copy of a check, credit card numbers, SSN, phone check) a list of
names is just a list of names. ARIN infers actual use from the list.

I merely propose you exclude PII from the data set from which you draw

Really, I don't even want that much. I want you to exclude PII *until*
the applicant balks at a request for non-PII data. An otherwise
cooperative applicant, like Jack, should never need to turn over
sub-/29 PII to complete the process. Folks like David, who is
sensitive about different information instead, ought to be able to
complete the process using the PII.

One standard. Multiple options. Applicant empowered to select.

Give me a way to write such an eminently sensible policy which isn't
capriciously excluded from the policy process. I really don't
appreciate being forced into a mold that makes the proposal less


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

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list