[arin-ppml] Incorrect POC on resource records
tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Sep 26 11:01:18 EDT 2012
On 9/26/2012 7:00 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> 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
Sorry, but the address user is required to respond. When they signed
the RSA the RSA requires them to supply POCs. By allowing a POC to
become invalid they are no longer supplying the POC and are thus in
violation of the contract.
In any case, if an org deliberately ignores an invoice, their account
with ARIN runs in arrears and they lose the assignment.
If an org pays an invoice sent to the POC address then they ARE responding.
Obviously, there is a problem with POCs that have valid contact info
but then simply ignore letters and e-mails sent to that POC unless
those letters or e-mails come from ARIN. But, in those cases, since
they aren't in violation of the contract they signed, ARIN cannot
The issue are the so called Legacy assignments made pre-ARIN that there
is no RSA on file for. However, the NRPM requires ARIN to mark these
as invalid if the POC fails to respond.
So while your opinion may be that ARIN should never break a record,
the NRPM says otherwise.
Frankly, I see absolutely no benefit to the community to allow POCs
to remain in WHOIS that do not respond to anyone. At least, if the POC
is responding to ARIN but nobody else, that is some justification for
leaving them in there. But if they don't even respond to ARIN?
More information about the ARIN-PPML