Peter The draft is still on the AC's docket and the shepherds are working on it. I think it should be part of this discussion so I mentioned it so that folks could take a look.
Thanks! -----Cathy {Ô,Ô} (( )) ◊ ◊ On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Peter Thimmesch <peter.thimme...@addrex.net > wrote: > Hello Cathy, > > Yes, the was some rather heated discussion at the ARIN meeting in New > Orleans about the proposed wording in 3.6.7 Non-Responsive Point of > Contact Records. I believe, please correct me if you think otherwise, that > the consensus of opinions that spoke at the meeting were strongly against > the removing of records from public Whois. Therefore pointing someone to > consider this type of punitive action would be seemingly designed to do > what? > > What problem is trying to be solved with this proposed policy? Is it to > align the two existing policies or to create a punitive measure? > > Regards, > > Peter Thimmesch > > > On May 26, 2017, at 19:09, Cj Aronson <c...@daydream.com> wrote: > > Scott, > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette < >> r...@tristatelogic.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> In message <8a3a301d-39b5-4f81-8e2c-90e23b819...@panix.com>, >>> David Huberman <dav...@panix.com> wrote: >>> >>> >In short, there is an argument that the SWIP rules are no-op now. So to >>> answer >>> >your question directly; what do you do? Nothing. Those days are long >>> gone >>> >and ARIN has other focuses now. >>> >>> So, let me see if I understand this... >>> >>> ARIN doesn't, can't, and most probably won't either enforce the existing >>> (IPv4) SWIP rules, nor, for that matter, any new SWIP rules that may be >>> drafted and/or promulgated with respect to IPv6. Is that about the size >>> of it? >>> >> >> Pretty much, unless someone comes up with a new method of enforcing SWIP >> rules. Some of the discussions with law enforcement could eventually >> result in such carrots or sticks, but no one has proposed any specifics yet. >> > > There is this draft policy that has a few "sticks" at least for > delegations to downstream ISPs. > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_3.html > >> >> >>> >>> ----Cathy > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues. > >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.