[arin-ppml] FYI -- RIPE-605 Services to Legacy InternetResource Holders

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Thu Feb 13 14:34:26 EST 2014


On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:40 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>  On Feb 13, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 11:58 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 2014, at 9:18 AM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>>
>
>  [ clip ]
>
>
>>
>> > However, to be honest, I'm not that interested in playing the ancient
>> history game -- I find the whole exercise pointless and boring. I am,
>> however, interested in what policy changes you believe it will take to get
>> ARIN to accurately reflect reality in its registry database. What's it
>> going to take?
>>
>>  I have been attempting to follow up on your suggestion to poll the
>> community, but we seem to have reached an impasse because ARIN is
>> keeping the registry accurate and your formulation would suggest
>> otherwise. Hence, my attempt at a more balanced phrasing, i.e. that
>> we should "survey the ARIN community regarding the prioritization of
>> needs-based transfers vs operational usefulness of registry data."
>>  If we can come up with acceptable language, we'll figure out how to
>> poll the ARIN community on this topic.
>>
>>
>  How about polling resource holders instead? A much larger audience.
>
>
>  It's possible, although we also need to always use caution when reaching
> out via the Whois contact information, since there is significant
> variation in
> what folks think of as "spam", even if related to the registry itself.
>
>
>

Thinking about it further, a poll would be more tail chasing.

David's question above is probably the best one in this thread. You guys
can have at it.

Best,

-M<
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140213/1617c62d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list