[arin-ppml] 8.2 Transfers at ARIN
hannigan at gmail.com
Tue Dec 10 11:07:33 EST 2013
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Eric Oosting <eric.oosting at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:52 AM, David Huberman <
>>> David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> > John,
>>> > Thank you for the stats. They mostly tell the story I was thinking
>>> they would: a very low approval and completion rate. And from that data,
>>> PPML can build (and ask) for solutions so that Whois can be made more
>>> accurate, and transfer requests can perhaps enjoy a much higher approval
>>> and completion percentage.
>>> It's not often that I see >50% characterized as a "very low" percentage
>> I'd call anything < 90% failure.
> This is a bit like being concerned about lower then 100% ATM withdrawal
> completion percentages when the KPI includes attempts where an invalid pin
> is used and where users canceled the transaction, perhaps because of the $3
> fee or perhaps because of some other reason.
The failure measurements would be telling as well with respect to the
"policy". Instinct tells me that it's interpretation of "need", which has
no relevance to registry accuracy and should be abandoned as a transfer
> Unless we can absolutely tell which Abandoned or Rejected requests are in
> bad faith (and I don't know that we can), I don't see how these statistics
> are at all useful. Instead, I suggest we stop focusing on the completion
Well, they're useful in that we can see how deficient they are.
> This doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for a better process. Most are
> agreed we could make this better. The line that must be waked is to prevent
> and discourage bad actors while making it easier for good actors.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML