Policy Proposal 2002-1

[internetadmin at bestchecks.com]

Hopefully this is not off-subject, nor addressed earlier.
In addition to monitoring for lame servers I would like to see ARIN also
monitor and verify email addresses for the POC.  As a user who forwards spam
and DOS attempts to the originating block owner, I find that about 5% of the
email addresses are invalid. Since email is the preferred method of
contacting the block owner, it's important that the address be correct. So
important in fact, that the delegation should be removed if the email
address is found to be invalid or not working. The addresses should be
checked at least monthly, and whenever a change is make to the database
record.

On another issue, although this may be a little late for the database
implementation: has any provision been made for additional POC contacts in
the database, like for violations of the AUP (i.e. an abuse email address)?
I think it is inappropriate to send spam/malicious URL complaints to the NOC
email address, but if this is the only address available for a less
well-known block owner, this is where the complaints are sent to.

-----Original Message-----
From: Member Services [mailto:memsvcs at arin.net]
Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:31 AM
To: arin-announce at arin.net; ppml at arin.net; dbwg at arin.net
Subject: Policy Proposal 2002-1



ARIN welcomes feedback and discussion about the following policy
proposal in the weeks leading to the ARIN public policy and members
meetings in Las Vegas, scheduled for April 7-10, 2002.  All feedback
received on the mailing lists about this policy proposal will be
included in the discussions that will take place at the upcoming public
policy meeting.

*****

Policy Proposal 2002-1:  Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA

It is proposed that ARIN actively identify lame servers on a regular
basis and notify the ARIN point of contact (POC) of their findings.  It
is further proposed that ARIN monitor the status of those identified
lame servers and remove all delegations that remain lame for a period of
30 days.

*****

It is understood there are many issues that need to be discussed related
to this policy proposal.  Specifically:

* How should the term "lame" be defined, as it relates to this proposed
policy?

* There has been recent discussion about the desire for WHOIS to more
strictly reflect the delegations within IN-ADDR.ARPA.  

  o Should lame delegations be identified in WHOIS, or simply removed?
  o If they are only flagged as lame, are they ever removed?
  o If they are removed, should ARIN publicly document removals?

* How should the POCs of networks with lame servers be contacted by
ARIN?

* Should ARIN proactively or reactively conduct monitoring to identify
lame delegations?


This policy proposal discussion will take place on the database working
group mailing list (dbwg at arin.net).  Subscription information is
available at http://www.arin.net/members/mailing.htm

Richard Jimmerson
Director of Operations
American Registry for Internet Numbers