Hi Ronald, Delegations made by APNIC are protected by the APNIC maintainer APNIC-HM, while delegations made by NIRs are protected by NIR maintainers like MAINT-VN-VNNIC, MAINT-JPNIC etc.
The netnames you mentioned are associated with delegations made by the NIRs. If you find any delegations made to APNIC Members that are missing the org attribute, please report it to our Helpdesk team so we can fix it. Apart from working with the NIRs, we are also attempting to contact the custodians of unused historical address space and encouraging them to maintain it under an APNIC account. In the event the custodians cannot be contacted, we plan to recycle that historical address space as per the policy on recovery of unused address space. Thanks Vivek On 30/11/20, 9:15 am, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <[email protected]> wrote: In message <[email protected]>, Vivek Nigam <[email protected]> wrote: >APNIC implemented the organization object in June 2017. All organizations >that joined APNIC after this date had their organization objects >automatically created and associated with their resources. I'm not 100% sure that this is accurate, but perhaps I am misunderstanding something subtle. While working on my software tool which attempts to map arbitrary inetnum: records, worldwide, to their corresponding organization names, I have come upon a number of inetnum:/netname: things that appear to me to be newer than June 2017, but where the inetnum: records in question fail to contain any org: sub-field. Many/most of these can be seen by simply querying the WHOIS data base for the relevant netnames. Here are some examples of relevant netnames: EHOSTICT KDTIDC RAKUTEN-CIDR-BLK-JP CLOUDMEDIA-VN BETINC QTNET-CIDR-BLK-JP AROGAYA INTERLINK-CIDR-BLK-JP FBDC-CIDR-BLK-JP These are just a few examples. Also and separately, it appears to me that in some (many?) cases, entities that joined APNIC -before- June 2017 have been granted number resource allocations -after- June, 2017, and those inetnum: records thus also, in many cases, fail to contain and org: sub-field. These cases are also problematic, and I think that one good way to encourage older organizations that have not yet entered into a formal contractual relationship with APNIC to do so now would be to stop giving those organizations additional number resources. Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.apnic.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fapnic-talk&data=04%7C01%7C%7C4e8fa2f9601b43537dce08d894bc98f3%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637422885054477876%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=sBSZIe%2F0zVIrhlEmc1DkaPLvfa7a7%2Bqi8CASHBQ2qMw%3D&reserved=0 _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk
