[arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Wed Sep 26 10:00:44 EDT 2012

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Steven Noble <snoble at sonn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2012, at 5:05 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Small problem. I'm not making any judgements, just stating facts.
>> Legacy addresses have value. Many believe that they are property.
>> There is law around abandoned property. ARIN has a responsibility to
>> make sure that this does not happen. Think of it like the equivalent
>> to a bank deposit. Banks have a responsibility to insure the safety of
>> your assets and so does ARIN. It's called stewardship. ARIN has a
>> responsibility to re-unite legacy block owners with their block or
>> ASN, not the other way around. And if they can't, then the State will
>> be the final arbiter.
> From my dealings with this subject I believe the way ARIN has handled legacy (and even post-ARIN) assets does not align with your interpretation of Stewardship.
> Unlike banks (lets not go down the one off cases), ARIN takes actively used assets and tags them as abandoned or "No, Contact Known", requiring the original owner to go through hoops to regain control of the asset that they originally had.  This is claimed to be done to protect the original owner from forgery and asset theft.  Whatever the logic is, the fact is, it cannot be compared to any other system of protection that I know of.

I agree with taking "an" action to protect the original owner from
forgery or theft.

And I used the bank account analogy not to start the inevitable giant
thread of incompatible analogies, but because it fits best. A bank
account are bits in a computer with nothing physical to touch or feel,
much like an address. The account, like a prefix, may be affected by
bad record keeping regardless of who's fault it was, the owners or the
steward. Both require a chain of custody examination to regain the
original rights.

> I question the validity of modifying ORG records to say "No, Contact Known" with an ARIN created POC.  In some cases the real POC _is_ known but has not been sufficiently re-vetted by ARIN causing a real POC to be replaced with a ARIN created wrong POC which IMHO makes the ARIN database unreliable.  It's one thing to label the asset as un-verified but it's a whole other issue to replace the real ORG POCs with known wrong one such as CKN23-ARIN.
> OrgTechHandle: CKN23-ARIN
> OrgTechName:   No, Contact Known
> OrgTechPhone:  +1-800-555-1234
> OrgTechEmail:  nobody at example.com
> OrgTechRef:    http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/CKN23-ARIN
> The TechName, TechPhone and TechEmail are all invalid, something that would (or should) not be tolerated from any ARIN customer, including ARIN themselves.

Yep. I agree. ARIN should never break a record that may not be broken.
Failure to respond does not mean that the contact info isn't correct



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list