<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [ppml] comments on 2005-2</title></head><body>
<div>At 16:03 -0400 4/15/05, Leo Bicknell wrote:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>As I said to a previous poster, it's just a label. A
flag that a<br>
>particular step in the process has been passed. I suppose we
could<br>
>add a definition, but it would be "someone who has failed the
first</div>
<div>>round of contacting is classified as suspended".</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Then don't use the word "suspended," perhaps
"labeled" (or "marked," or "noted as
unresponsive"). Suspended has connotes restrictions are put
in place. ("Suspended license.")</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>If we replaced "Offenders" with "Resource
holders" is it acceptable? The</div>
<div>>"offense" was failure to respond, which I agree was
poorly implied.<br>
</div>
<div>Or registrant...what ever is appropriate. The term
"offender" made me go back and look for the definition of
the offense.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>I disagree. Let's say an ISP lists a phone number, and
it's<br>
>disconnected. I should be able to e-mail ARIN and say
"I tried to<br>
>call ISP xyz and their phone is disconnected, so their contact<br>
>information is invalid." Under the proposal ARIN would
be required<br>
>to put them in the queue for verification to see if the
information<br>
>can be updated. That's far more useful than finding the
disconnected<br>
>number but simply having to wait a week/month/year for ARIN to
naturally</div>
<div>>re-verify them.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>There's no confidentiality disclosure there. ARIN is
providing no</div>
<div>>information back to the reporter. All I wanted to do
was give staff<br>
>an out so if someone tried to get an ISP reverified once a day
just<br>
>to be a PITA ARIN staff could just ignore that person.<br>
</div>
<div>The context of my comment is that the policy states:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div># If a third party submits reports of the inability to make
contact</div>
<div># that are subsequently disproven, ARIN may choose to
ignore</div>
<div># reports from specific companies, people, e-mail addresses,
or</div>
<div># any other classification means as appropriate.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>If ARIN does not respond to the party reporting, what does it
matter if ARIN (staff?) chooses to ignore a reporting party that is
known for "crying wolf?"</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I.e., I am questioning the need for the quoted paragraph.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>I have no objection to IRIS, and indeed would like to see it
added.<br>
>That said, I think it's probably too late to consider IRIS for
this</div>
<div>>meeting. If the proposal passes, we can present one at
the next</div>
<div>>meeting to add IRIS to the list.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At what point is it too late? I asked about adding IRIS in
this message a month ago:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/3201.html</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<span
></span>-=-=-=-<br>
Edward
Lewis <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span
> <span
></span> +1-571-434-5468<br>
NeuStar<br>
</div>
<div>If you knew what I was thinking, you'd understand what I was
saying.</div>
</body>
</html>