FWIW, here's another version of the rationale that the original author had on an earlier version...<br><br>"<span style="font-size: 11pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif";">Due the large size of IPv6 address blocks there will
be no real or effective enforcement mechanism to ensure those who are allocated
IPv6 address will maintain the proper WHOIS records in accordance with ARIN
NRPM 6.5.<span style=""> </span>While it is recognized this is
not an absolute solution to ensure compliance, it is the best method under
current ARIN policies."</span><br><br>-Scott<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 10:00 AM, George Bonser <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gbonser@seven.com">gbonser@seven.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">Fair enough, but maybe it should be more explicit that it is aimed at keeping whois up to date. I agree that valid contact information is important. The major problem with v6 is going to be hijacking of address space simply because there is so much of it available. Nefarious operators are probably just going to grab a chunk of space and use it and the v6 “full bogons” list is so large that it probably can’t be used on most dual stack routers (along with the full v4 and v6 non-bogons tables).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">But as someone pointed out earlier, how big a problem is this? What percentage of the issued resources is currently assigned to “dead” contacts?</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);">“most of what you're objecting to is already policy” except the “we break your network” part about turning off reverse dns which on reflection, is probably ok. But you are right, it wasn’t exactly clear to me on a quick read how much of the proposed text is new. Thanks for sending that bolded version. In fact, I am in favor of producing that format in proposed changes with any deleted existing wording shown stuck through and new wording in bold. It sure makes it easier to see what exactly is being changed.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; color: rgb(31, 73, 125);"> </span></p><div style="border-width: medium medium medium 1.5pt; border-style: none none none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color blue; padding: 0in 0in 0in 4pt;">
<div><div style="border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) -moz-use-text-color -moz-use-text-color; padding: 3pt 0in 0in;"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;">From:</span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> Scott Leibrand [mailto:<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" target="_blank">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:44 AM<br><b>To:</b> George Bonser<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-126: Compliance Requirement</span></p>
</div></div><div class="im"><p class="MsoNormal"> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">I don't think this policy proposal is about IPv4. There is already an effective enforcement mechanism there: you can't get more space unless you're following procedures. But for IPv6, there is no real enforcement mechanism to ensure that those who are allocated IPv6 addresses will keep whois up to date. The original intent of the author was to give ARIN a tool to encourage people to keep their IPv6 whois records up to date, even if they never go back for additional space.<br>
<br>And as I mentioned in another message, most of what you're objecting to is already policy. If you want to change that, we'd need a new policy proposal to do so...<br><br>-Scott</p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 9:10 AM, George Bonser <<a href="mailto:gbonser@seven.com" target="_blank">gbonser@seven.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br><br><br></p></div><p class="MsoNormal"> </p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>