On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:58 AM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:52 AM, David Huberman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > John, > > > > Thank you for the stats. They mostly tell the story I was thinking they > > would: a very low approval and completion rate. And from that data, PPML > > can build (and ask) for solutions so that Whois can be made more accurate, > > and transfer requests can perhaps enjoy a much higher approval and > > completion percentage. > > It's not often that I see >50% characterized as a "very low" percentage rate. > > I'd call anything < 90% failure. > We don’t currently have anything to indicate what proportion of the unsuccessful transfer attempts were fraudulent. I would agree that 90% or more of transfer requests with valid documentation should go through. However, merely increasing the success rate without some validation that we are not merely increasing the fraud rate does not improve registry accuracy. > If one is presuming that 100% should be approved, then that characterization > makes sense. Given that a number of NRPM 8.2 applicants have been shown to be > not in good faith during the application process, I am quite pleased that the > completion rate is less than 100%. > > If the objective of transfer is to keep the registry accurate, it should be > closer to 100%. Only if one assumes that 100% of transfer attempts are accurate. So far, there has been little evidence to support such a claim. Owen
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
