Dear Ted, Please strive to be excellent. I'm confident your key points can be formulated in a more professional manner.
Kind regards, Job On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 03:00:26AM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
