I find it a huge joke when you, Alyssa, are so eager to engage in being
the netiquette policeman and yet have so little to say in support of
Validation, which is in fact a tool of REAL policemen doing REAL
policing work. Are we supposed to be OK with a mailbox loaded with spam
from spammers hiding behind IP addresses with bogus SWIPS on them as
long as the spam does not "show disrespect"? Don't you realize how
ridiculous your position is? Your very chiding me is just more proof
that we need Validation intact.
In my view the recommendation was disrespectful in the extreme. No
consideration was given to the work in getting the POC validation into
the NRPM in the first place, and subjective language was used in the
recommendation (using the loaded word spam which isn't even an accurate
description of the alleged problem)
The proposal to ashcan the validation did not come from Newbies who
deserved some gentle explanation it came from people who knew better and
some of whom undoubtedly stand to benefit financially from making the
numbering more anonymous.
It is a recommendation only a spammer could love. And it is wrapping
itself in the "ARIN is spamming" loaded description. In short, it's a
proposal that HELPS spammers that claims to be condemning spam!!! You
cannot lie better than that if you laid the recommendation down in the
road and ran over it with a steamroller!
It took years for us to get Validation in, and Validation has exposed
a great amount of either fraud or just lazy-ass bookkeeping, talk to any
hostmaster at ARIN off the record and they will tell you that because of
validation they have been able to hold the feet of the sloppy direct
holders over the fire - Validation has allowed them to deny requests
from the large sloppy ones which has resulted in more efficient and
smaller users to get addressing, and it serves as a big giant 500 pound
hammer threat to keep address holders honest.
You don't casually toss it aside by claiming that it's "spamming" which
it is not.
You do not ignore the fact that without it nothing is stopping a POC
from using an unreachable bogus address like [email protected]
You don't toss it aside when it's proving over and over that the direct
addressholders are being extremely sloppy and lax (at best) by not
maintaining their SWIPS and outright fraudulent at worst.
You don't toss it aside when you do not have a workable IPv6
alternative, we have scores of extremely large ISPs (like Comcast) in
the United States who are still not delivering usable IPv6 to businesses
and as a result there is tremendous need for increasing utilization of
the IPv4 that we have out there.
You don't ashcan it when there's financial incentive to hoard-and-sell
IPv4 and to make illegitimate requests for the small amount of it that
does get returned back to ARIN from time to time.
And you do not claim that law enforcement is at all effective at using
the POCs to chase down what are essentially civil violators.
Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head and telling them they have to
get a static block of IP addresses. They are choosing to do this and
when they make that choice part of it is exposing who they are - just as
when you make the choice to buy a car part of the responsibility of
owning it is displaying a license plate that is not fake, and that does
in fact say who the hell you are. Those "angry callers" cited in the
recommendation have ZERO moral or legal ground to stand on and be angry.
ARIN should be hanging up on them when they get angry or telling them
to bug off. Most likely they are angry because they intended to be up
to no good and discovered they couldn't hide.
Alyssa, YOU are able to chide me BECAUSE OF THE FACT I AM USING MY REAL
NAME AND NOT HIDING BEHIND AN ANONYMOUS HANDLE.
Yet you are essentially defending people who want to greatly increase
the ability of spammers and other ne'er-do-wells to hide on the
Internet, by use of the old diversion trick of attacking the messenger
and pretty much ignoring the message.
The people who have a problem with Validation have the onus to propose
an alternative Validation that does not take a sledgehammer to the
existing Validation. It is they who need to make the "alternative
proposal" If they have a problem with it they can take a scalpel to it
not a cannon and preserve the effect. I explained how to do this after
about 5 minutes of thought. This is not rocket science.
It seems crystal clear that the anti-Validation people who wrote the
recommendation have always disliked Validation and are just looking for
a chance to get rid of it. They came up with the idea of labeling
Validation spam, and I called them on it. That is what this is all about.
Ted
On 12/20/2016 3:03 PM, Alyssa Moore wrote:
Ted, I think contacting a random subset of indirect POCs à la auditing
practices is a valid suggestion. This would still address the human
resource intensity from part 2 of the problem statement. This is a
different approach than 2016-8, and could very well be be the basis of
an alternative POC Validation policy proposal.
However, the contribution certainly could have been framed with more
tact and fewer personal attacks. I think the crass comments were wholly
unnecessary additions. As a newer member of the community who is
actively trying to get fresh faces involved, it's exactly that kind of
rhetoric that serves to discourage new folks from participating in the
PDP. Please also note that the Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy states:
"The following activities are specifically prohibited on any ARIN
mailing list:
1) Statements that include *foul language, personal character attacks,
or show disrespect for other participants,* including ARIN."
Let's commit to a more refined level of discourse.
With respect,
Alyssa
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 12:32 PM Ted Mittelstaedt <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think this is a load of baloney. The requirement can be EASILY
modified to only contact a RANDOMLY SELECTED SUBSET this is EXACTLY how
auditing firms check validity.
You can simply modify it to say that instead of contacting every
indirect POC every year that you are going to select a random group of
POCs and contact them - this will verify if the subnet holders are
filing SWIPS that are accurate or if they are just making up stuff to
meet utilization requirements.
That way the indirect POC holders will never know if this year they are
going to be contacted or not - thus they have an incentive to maintain
accurate records.
If ARIN is having trouble NOW with validating indirect POCs then it is
CRYSTAL CLEAR that the direct allocation holders ARE SHIRKING THEIR
REQUIREMENT FOR HONESTY AND ACCURACY. The solution of "oh they are
being a bunch of LAZY ASSES and not keeping their paperwork up so we are
just going to eliminate the requirement" is to me kind of like saying
that since the convicted felon out on parole is not honoring
his probation terms and checking in with his probation officer, that we
are just going to end his probation.
Clearly the author of this recommendation was one of those kids who got
First prizes for "participation" and other such rubbish when he was
growing up.
Ted
On 12/20/2016 10:09 AM, ARIN wrote:
> On 15 December 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the
> following Proposal to Draft Policy status:
>
> ARIN-prop-233: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
>
> This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled:
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation
Requirement
>
> Draft Policy text is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_8.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of
this draft
> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy as
> stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these
> principles are:
>
> > Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> > Technically Sound
> > Supported by the Community
>
> The PDP can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
> ##########
>
> ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> There are over 600,000 POCs registered in Whois that are only
associated
> with indirect assignments (reassignments) and indirect allocations
> (reallocations). NRPM 3.6 requires ARIN to contact all 600,000+
of these
> every year to validate the POC information. This is problematic for a
> few reasons:
>
> 1) ARIN does not have a business relationships with these POCs. By
> conducting POC validation via email, ARIN is sending Unsolicited
> Commercial Emails. Further, because of NRPM 3.6.1, ARIN cannot
offer an
> opt-out mechanism. Finally, ARIN's resultant listing on anti-spam
lists
> causes unacceptable damage to ARIN's ability to conduct ordinary
> business over email
>
> 2) ARIN has previously reported that POC validation to reassignments
> causes tremendous work for the staff. It receives many angry
phone calls
> and emails about the POC validation process. I believe the ARIN staff
> should be focused on POC validation efforts for directly issued
> resources, as that has more value to internet operations and law
> enforcement than end-user POC information.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Replace the first sentence of 3.6.1:
>
> "During ARIN's annual Whois POC validation, an email will be sent to
> every POC in the Whois database."
>
> with
>
> "During ARIN's annual Whois POC validation, an email will be sent to
> every POC that is a contact for a direct assignment, direct
allocation,
> reallocation, and AS number, and their associated OrgIDs."
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you
experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you
experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
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.
