Hi Jason, Although I did look into the issue raised by your March 15 email promptly after receiving it. I inadvertently forgot to reply to you. Please accept my apology.
Based on ARIN Staff input, a major impediment to the proposed Section 3.8 is that ARIN cannot be involved in the contractual relationship between its customer and any of the customer’s customers. The ARIN customer may be submitting a simple reassignment, precisely because it wants to maintain control over POC records. Examples may include branches located in different states of an entity that may want to use address information corresponding to its head office and or other locations in which it has a presence. If there is a dispute with an entity that already has an OrgID with ARIN and its upstream provider on how to register the entity’s reassignments, those organizations will have the awareness and knowledge to resolve that issue between themselves. Chris From: Jason Schiller <[email protected]> Sent: March 15, 2018 4:29 PM To: Christian Tacit <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2017-12: Require POC Validation Upon Reassignment This problem is not scoped only to with a new POC is created. This was also supposed to be a check in 3.7 to insure a resource is not randomly SWIP'd to a pre-existing org. 3.8 was intended to chatch when a resource is SWIP'd to a pre-existing org, but that org ID is not used, and that org's address is put into a reassign simple. I don't see how this is not implementable.. - If the compnay name is a match for something ARIN already has a relationship with, then they should have good contact info. - If the contact info is a known address of a compnay that ARIN already has a relationship with, then they should have good contact info for that compnay. - If all else fails they can send a post card to the mailing address. At a mimimum, if the post card is undeliverable, or a holder of the the post card contacts ARIN, they should revoke the SWIP. ___Jason On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Christian Tacit <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear Community Members, The shepherds for the Draft Policy 2017-12: Require POC Validation Upon Reassignment, are making two changes to its text. First, the problem statement is being expanded a bit to explain how POCs for reassigned blocks can be assigned without the knowledge of the individuals so assigned under the present policy. Second, proposed section 3.8 has been deleted. This is because it is unintentionally misleading because a simple reassignment results in a customer identifier versus an OrgID. There is no contact information contained in a simple reassignment other than street address that could be used for notification, and thus it does not appear that the proposed NRPM 3.8 policy text is implementable. Even if notification were possible, the “OR postal address” in this section may also cause significant problems for some companies as many companies have the same name associated with many different locations and there are several locations that have many companies registered there. Based on these changes, the revised text reads: Version Date: March 12, 2018 Problem Statement: Some large ISPs assign individuals to be POCs for reassigned blocks without consultation of the individual they are inserting into Whois. For example, during the reassignment/reallocation process, some large ISPs automatically create POCs from their customer’s order form. This process is automated for many ISPs and therefore the resulting POCs are not validated prior to being created in the ARIN Whois database. This creates unknowing POCs that have no idea what Whois is or even who ARIN is at the time they receive the annual POC validation email. It can also create multiple POCs per email address causing that same person to receive a multitude of POC Validation emails each year. This policy proposal seeks to improve the situation where a POC is unwittingly and unintentionally inserted into Whois. It also seeks to mitigate the significant amount of time that ARIN staff reports that they spend fielding phone calls from POCs who have no idea they are in Whois. Finally, it is hopeful that this proposal will improve the overall POC validation situation, by forcing ISPs and customers to work together to insert proper information into Whois at the time of sub-delegation. Policy statement: Insert one new section into NRPM 3: 3.7 New POC Validation Upon Reassignment When an ISP submits a valid reallocation or detailed reassignment request to ARIN which would result in a new POC object being created, ARIN must (before otherwise approving the request) contact the new POC by email for validation. ARIN's notification will, at a minimum, notify the POC of: - the information about the organization submitting the record; and - the resource(s) to which the POC is being attached; and - the organization(s) to which the POC is being attached. If the POC validates the request, the request shall be accepted by ARIN and the new objects inserted into Whois. If the POC does not validate the request within 10 days, ARIN must reject the request. Timetable for implementation: Immediate Comments from the community are welcome! Christian S. Tacit _______________________________________________ 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. -- _______________________________________________________ Jason Schiller|NetOps|[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>|571-266-0006
_______________________________________________ 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.
