[arin-ppml] ARIN 2016-8 Removal of indirect POC

Rudolph Daniel rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Thu Jan 19 20:45:40 EST 2017


I oppose the policy as written.

I have to agree with Owen on this one...In that it does not sound like
palatable solution to the problem aired.
Although, a change to 'may be sent'  is similar to 'will not be sent'.

Is there some other annual event which can be used to impose POC update at
the same time (??)
rd

On Jan 19, 2017 4:39 PM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
        arin-ppml at arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        arin-ppml-request at arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        arin-ppml-owner at arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC
      Validation Requirement (Chris Woodfield)
   2. ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility (ARIN)
   3. Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net (narten at us.ibm.com)
   4. Re: Draft Policy 2016-7 -- Integrate community networks into
      Existing ISP Policy (David Farmer)
   5. Re: ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility
      (David R Huberman)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 09:58:12 -0800
From: Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com>
To: ARIN <info at arin.net>, arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect
        POC Validation Requirement
Message-ID: <44BCDCD7-5449-443B-9F97-C57B871161F2 at semihuman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Is the presence of the phrase ?will be sent? in the current policy intended
to set a requirement for the POC (this email will be sent annually, you
must reply to it in order to validate the record), or intended as a
requirement for ARIN staff (ARIN is required to send the email annually)?

To the concept of the random audit approach mentioned earlier, It may be
simple enough to change ?will be sent? to ?may be sent?. I?d argue that
procedurally the sampling rate should be fairly high, however (i.e. no less
than, say, 20% of records).

-C

> On Jan 5, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> I oppose the policy as written.
>
> While I agree that the validation of indirect POCs by ARIN has become a
problem, I believe that this is the exact opposite of a good solution.
>
> Indeed, my organization has a significant problem with vendors creating
indirect POC records pointing to individuals within my organization who are
not good POCs for the space in question rather than using our existing POC
handles which we have provided to those vendors.
>
> The current POC validation process is one of the few checks and balances
which allows us to catch and address these issues.
>

P.S. Personally, I?d argue that a viable alternate strategy in the absence
of that check/balance would be to make sure that the requirement to use
your official POCs is written into your vendor contracts at next renewal,
and operationally onto a service acceptance checklist backed up by said
contract language.

> Ideally, we would like to have a way for ARIN to flag and validate new
POCs pointed at our organization _BEFORE_ they are actually placed into the
database or attached to resources.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Dec 20, 2016, at 10:09 , ARIN <info at arin.net> 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).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact 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).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 14:17:18 -0500
From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility
Message-ID: <ea90a56c-21f5-47d8-f6ad-9500a9f78248 at arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed

To PPML -

As a result of policy discussions in the AFRINIC region, ARIN is
providing the following to information:

On 30 September 2016 ARIN received a query from AFRINIC requesting an
assessment on the compatibility of AFRINIC proposed
1803-inbound-transfer-policy with ARIN policy. On 6 October 2016 ARIN
responded with the following assessment:

Based on ARIN?s Number Resource Policy Manual, Version 2016.2 ? 13 July
2016, and referencing the following text from paragraph 8.4. Inter-RIR
Transfers to Specified Recipients, we have determined that the proposed
AFRINIC Inbound Transfer Policy is not reciprocal.

?Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the
transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.?

In this case reciprocal meaning that the policy provides both RIRs the
same ability to transfer: both in and out. This policy proposal as
written could not be implemented by ARIN. Note that ARIN?s Inter-RIR
transfer policy is based on other RIR's transfer policy and does not
consider any LIR or NIR policies.

Regards,

John Sweeting
Sr. Director, RSD
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)





------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:53:23 -0500
From: narten at us.ibm.com
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] Weekly posting summary for ppml at arin.net
Message-ID: <201701130553.v0D5rN8s018352 at rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days.

script run at: Fri Jan 13 00:53:18 EST 2017

    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 25.00% |    1 | 33.84% |    11000 | chris at semihuman.com
 25.00% |    1 | 26.19% |     8514 | narten at us.ibm.com
 25.00% |    1 | 20.31% |     6603 | info at arin.net
 25.00% |    1 | 19.66% |     6391 | ppml at rsuc.gweep.net
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |    4 |100.00% |    32508 | Total



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:42:11 -0600
From: David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu>
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2016-7 -- Integrate community
        networks into Existing ISP Policy
Message-ID:
        <CAN-Dau0kCCNxDvCTZgwudnzLN3Yt2o-xu6gMYcb0Dc5igWRU5Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

It concerns me that no one that operates a community network has commented
on this policy.  Further it concerns me that no one from the general ARIN
policy community commented either, only AC members and a former AC member
who is also the policy author have made any comments.

Is there interest from the ARIN policy community to work on this or are
their other priorities for the community's time?

It would be helpful to hear from others in regards to if this is something
we should be working on or not.

Thanks.

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

> It would be especially helpful for the AC if those who operate community
> networks could review the proposed draft policy and see if the problem
> statement highlights an issue for operators and if the proposed text
solves
> this problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On 12/15/2016 3:30 PM, Kevin Blumberg wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
> As the author of 2016-7 I disagree.
>
> The change in 2016-6 had no meaningful impact to the usefulness of
Community
> Networks. T
>
> The purpose of 2016-7 was to significantly reduce the red tape
requirements
> with Community Networks.
>
> I believe that without this kind of policy Community Network's will never
> get used given the onerous requirements.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kevin Blumberg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net <
arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 4:19 PM
> To: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net> <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2016-7 -- Integrate community networks
> into Existing ISP Policy
>
> I believe that this proposal no longer has relevance given the advancement
> of 2016-6 and its rewrite of the community networks policy to the board.
>
> If anyone feels that the AC should not abandon this proposal at their
> January meeting, please speak up.
>
> Owen
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
Public
> Policy Mailing List (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 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).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact 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).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



--
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
attachments/20170117/1d53d82b/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2017 15:36:54 -0500 (EST)
From: David R Huberman <daveid at panix.com>
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy
        compatibility
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.64.1701191530420.25224 at panix1.panix.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"; Format="flowed"


Last week, ARIN staff sent to this list a copy of their response to
AFRINIC on inter-RIR transfer policy compatability.

The AFRINIC community is considering a one-way transfer policy as a
bootstrap for the few years until they reach IPv4 runout, at which point
it would aim to become two-way.

I feel like as a member of the internet community, that ARIN (we - us -
the PPML participants) should be accepting that an RIR in a different
region has different needs than we do. I think we should allow African
internet operators to obtain blocks from sellers in the ARIN region, and
transfer them to AFRINIC to meet their needs.

The AFRINIC inbound transfer policy is very ARIN-like. It's needs-basis,
and the language looks very similar to 8.2 and 8.3 language we've had at
ARIN for a very long time.

cf.

http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/
policy-proposals/1803-inbound-transfer-policy

That's my opinion.  What's yours?

Thanks,
David


On Thu, 12 Jan 2017, ARIN wrote:

> To PPML -
>
> As a result of policy discussions in the AFRINIC region, ARIN is
> providing the following to information:
>
> On 30 September 2016 ARIN received a query from AFRINIC requesting an
> assessment on the compatibility of AFRINIC proposed
> 1803-inbound-transfer-policy with ARIN policy. On 6 October 2016 ARIN
> responded with the following assessment:
>
> Based on ARIN???s Number Resource Policy Manual, Version 2016.2 ??? 13
July
> 2016, and referencing the following text from paragraph 8.4. Inter-RIR
> Transfers to Specified Recipients, we have determined that the proposed
> AFRINIC Inbound Transfer Policy is not reciprocal.
>
> ???Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the
> transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies.???
>
> In this case reciprocal meaning that the policy provides both RIRs the
> same ability to transfer: both in and out. This policy proposal as
> written could not be implemented by ARIN. Note that ARIN???s Inter-RIR
> transfer policy is based on other RIR's transfer policy and does not
> consider any LIR or NIR policies.
>
> Regards,
>
> John Sweeting
> Sr. Director, RSD
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (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 if you experience any issues.

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml

------------------------------

End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 139, Issue 2
*****************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170119/38439136/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list