[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Wed Dec 21 06:00:26 EST 2016

I find it a huge joke when you, Alyssa, are so eager to engage in being 
the netiquette policeman and yet have so little to say in support of 
Validation, which is in fact a tool of REAL policemen doing REAL 
policing work.  Are we supposed to be OK with a mailbox loaded with spam 
from spammers hiding behind IP addresses with bogus SWIPS on them as 
long as the spam does not "show disrespect"?  Don't you realize how 
ridiculous your position is?  Your very chiding me is just more proof 
that we need Validation intact.

In my view the recommendation was disrespectful in the extreme.  No 
consideration was given to the work in getting the POC validation into 
the NRPM in the first place, and subjective language was used in the 
recommendation (using the loaded word spam which isn't even an accurate 
description of the alleged problem)

The proposal to ashcan the validation did not come from Newbies who
deserved some gentle explanation it came from people who knew better and
some of whom undoubtedly stand to benefit financially from making the 
numbering more anonymous.

It is a recommendation only a spammer could love.  And it is wrapping 
itself in the "ARIN is spamming" loaded description.  In short, it's a
proposal that HELPS spammers that claims to be condemning spam!!!  You
cannot lie better than that if you laid the recommendation down in the
road and ran over it with a steamroller!

It took years for us to get Validation in, and Validation has exposed
a great amount of either fraud or just lazy-ass bookkeeping, talk to any 
hostmaster at ARIN off the record and they will tell you that because of 
validation they have been able to hold the feet of the sloppy direct 
holders over the fire - Validation has allowed them to deny requests 
from the large sloppy ones which has resulted in more efficient and 
smaller users to get addressing, and it serves as a big giant 500 pound 
hammer threat to keep address holders honest.

You don't casually toss it aside by claiming that it's "spamming" which 
it is not.

You do not ignore the fact that without it nothing is stopping a POC 
from using an unreachable bogus address like santaclaus at castle.northpole

You don't toss it aside when it's proving over and over that the direct 
addressholders are being extremely sloppy and lax (at best) by not 
maintaining their SWIPS and outright fraudulent at worst.

You don't toss it aside when you do not have a workable IPv6 
alternative, we have scores of extremely large ISPs (like Comcast) in 
the United States who are still not delivering usable IPv6 to businesses
and as a result there is tremendous need for increasing utilization of
the IPv4 that we have out there.

You don't ashcan it when there's financial incentive to hoard-and-sell 
IPv4 and to make illegitimate requests for the small amount of it that 
does get returned back to ARIN from time to time.

And you do not claim that law enforcement is at all effective at using 
the POCs to chase down what are essentially civil violators.

Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and telling them they have to 
get a static block of IP addresses.  They are choosing to do this and 
when they make that choice part of it is exposing who they are - just as 
when you make the choice to buy a car part of the responsibility of 
owning it is displaying a license plate that is not fake, and that does 
in fact say who the hell you are.  Those "angry callers" cited in the 
recommendation have ZERO moral or legal ground to stand on and be angry. 
  ARIN should be hanging up on them when they get angry or telling them 
to bug off.  Most likely they are angry because they intended to be up 
to no good and discovered they couldn't hide.

Alyssa, YOU are able to chide me BECAUSE OF THE FACT I AM USING MY REAL 

Yet you are essentially defending people who want to greatly increase 
the ability of spammers and other ne'er-do-wells to hide on the 
Internet, by use of the old diversion trick of attacking the messenger 
and pretty much ignoring the message.

The people who have a problem with Validation have the onus to propose 
an alternative Validation that does not take a sledgehammer to the 
existing Validation.  It is they who need to make the "alternative 
proposal"  If they have a problem with it they can take a scalpel to it 
not a cannon and preserve the effect.  I explained how to do this after
about 5 minutes of thought.   This is not rocket science.

It seems crystal clear that the anti-Validation people who wrote the 
recommendation have always disliked Validation and are just looking for 
a chance to get rid of it.  They came up with the idea of labeling
Validation spam, and I called them on it.  That is what this is all about.


On 12/20/2016 3:03 PM, Alyssa Moore wrote:
> Ted, I think contacting a random subset of indirect POCs à la auditing
> practices is a valid suggestion. This would still address the human
> resource intensity from part 2 of the problem statement. This is a
> different approach than 2016-8, and could very well be be the basis of
> an alternative POC Validation policy proposal.
> However, the contribution certainly could have been framed with more
> tact and fewer personal attacks. I think the crass comments were wholly
> unnecessary additions. As a newer member of the community who is
> actively trying to get fresh faces involved, it's exactly that kind of
> rhetoric that serves to discourage new folks from participating in the
> PDP. Please also note that the Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy states:
> "The following activities are specifically prohibited on any ARIN
> mailing list:
> 1) Statements that include *foul language, personal character attacks,
> or show disrespect for other participants,* including ARIN."
> Let's commit to a more refined level of discourse.
> With respect,
> Alyssa
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:32 PM Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net
> <mailto:tedm at ipinc.net>> wrote:
>     I think this is a load of baloney.  The requirement can be EASILY
>     modified to only contact a RANDOMLY SELECTED SUBSET this is EXACTLY how
>     auditing firms check validity.
>     You can simply modify it to say that instead of contacting every
>     indirect POC every year that you are going to select a random group of
>     POCs and contact them - this will verify if the subnet holders are
>     filing SWIPS that are accurate or if they are just making up stuff to
>     meet utilization requirements.
>     That way the indirect POC holders will never know if this year they are
>     going to be contacted or not - thus they have an incentive to maintain
>     accurate records.
>     If ARIN is having trouble NOW with validating indirect POCs then it is
>     CRYSTAL CLEAR that the direct allocation holders ARE SHIRKING THEIR
>     REQUIREMENT FOR HONESTY AND ACCURACY.  The solution of "oh they are
>     being a bunch of LAZY ASSES and not keeping their paperwork up so we are
>     just going to eliminate the requirement" is to me kind of like saying
>     that since the convicted felon out on parole is not honoring
>     his probation terms and checking in with his probation officer, that we
>     are just going to end his probation.
>     Clearly the author of this recommendation was one of those kids who got
>     First prizes for "participation" and other such rubbish when he was
>     growing up.
>     Ted
>     On 12/20/2016 10:09 AM, ARIN wrote:
>      > On 15 December 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the
>      > following Proposal to Draft Policy status:
>      >
>      > ARIN-prop-233: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
>      >
>      > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled:
>      >
>      > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation
>     Requirement
>      >
>      > Draft Policy text is below and can be found at:
>      > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_8.html
>      >
>      > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
>      > evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of
>     this draft
>      > policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as
>      > stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these
>      > principles are:
>      >
>      > > Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>      > > Technically Sound
>      > > Supported by the Community
>      >
>      > The PDP can be found at:
>      > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>      >
>      > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>      > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>      >
>      > Regards,
>      >
>      > Sean Hopkins
>      > Policy Analyst
>      > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>      >
>      > ##########
>      >
>      > ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
>      >
>      > Problem Statement:
>      >
>      > There are over 600,000 POCs registered in Whois that are only
>     associated
>      > with indirect assignments (reassignments) and indirect allocations
>      > (reallocations). NRPM 3.6 requires ARIN to contact all 600,000+
>     of these
>      > every year to validate the POC information. This is problematic for a
>      > few reasons:
>      >
>      > 1) ARIN does not have a business relationships with these POCs. By
>      > conducting POC validation via email, ARIN is sending Unsolicited
>      > Commercial Emails. Further, because of NRPM 3.6.1, ARIN cannot
>     offer an
>      > opt-out mechanism. Finally, ARIN's resultant listing on anti-spam
>     lists
>      > causes unacceptable damage to ARIN's ability to conduct ordinary
>      > business over email
>      >
>      > 2) ARIN has previously reported that POC validation to reassignments
>      > causes tremendous work for the staff. It receives many angry
>     phone calls
>      > and emails about the POC validation process. I believe the ARIN staff
>      > should be focused on POC validation efforts for directly issued
>      > resources, as that has more value to internet operations and law
>      > enforcement than end-user POC information.
>      >
>      > Policy statement:
>      >
>      > Replace the first sentence of 3.6.1:
>      >
>      > "During ARIN's annual Whois POC validation, an email will be sent to
>      > every POC in the Whois database."
>      >
>      > with
>      >
>      > "During ARIN's annual Whois POC validation, an email will be sent to
>      > every POC that is a contact for a direct assignment, direct
>     allocation,
>      > reallocation, and AS number, and their associated OrgIDs."
>      >
>      > Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>      > _______________________________________________
>      > PPML
>      > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>      > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>     <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>      > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>      > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>      > Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>     experience any issues.
>     _______________________________________________
>     PPML
>     You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>     the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>     <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>     Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>     http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>     Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>     experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list