On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Matthew Petach <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> John, >> >> The policy proposal in the archive initially stated that it should be >> brought to the attention of the community and didn't imply roadblocks. >> I forget how the whois requirement was inserted and I don't really >> care since the issue is policy, but if I recall correctly that whois >> document wasn't a legal agreement "back then". Transparency != 6 pages >> of legalese. >> >> Would have been nice to for the system to generate a warning to an >> associated admin POC that ARIN was going to cripple a networks ability >> to maintain its resource legitimately. >> >> IMHO, ARIN is over stepping its boundaries. >> > > I disagree; I think this is well within the > purview of ARIN's mandate to restrict > access to records for non-compliant > networks. > > > We can disagree. If ARIN made reasonable efforts to keep the registry accurate and make the record keeping reasonable as well, no arguments. But that is not the case. I wonder if the application of such a response is consistent as well. Best, -M<
_______________________________________________ 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.
