Re: [sig-policy] prop-084-v002: Frequent whois information update reques
Again, agree it's a good thing to maintain accuracy of Whois, but would
like to understand how much actual problems we have today.
Would APNIC be able to share data on how many reports of inaccurate
registered data you receive today, and how much of them actually get
update within a reasonable period of time?
Also one question/comment as an indivisual.
I think non-portable inet-nums (assignments) are hidden as default.
Does APNIC need to request for updates for these inet-nums indivisually
too? Seems like a lot of work on APNIC but the effect is limited, so
don't feel strong needs to work on these objects.
Izumi/JPNIC
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-084-v002: Frequent whois information update request
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Author: Tobias Knecht <tk at abusix dot com>
>
> Version: 2
>
> Date: 9 August 2010
>
> 1. Introduction
> ----------------
>
> This is a proposal for APNIC to regularly contact all APNIC current
> account holders with resources in the APNIC Whois Database to ask them
> to actively check that all their details in whois are up to date.
>
> To actively check details, the object owner has to log into the MyAPNIC
> Portal and acknowledge the accuracy of data in their object(s) or update
> all existing objects if needed. The update date will be shown in the
> "changed" attribute of every single object.
>
> 2. Summary of current problem
> ------------------------------
>
> Whois database data accuracy has been a big issue for years now. There
> have been several approaches to get better data accuracy within whois
> information all over the world.
>
> There are two main reasons for data inaccuracy in whois:
>
> a) Wrong data is published to camouflage illegal actions.
>
> b) Wrong data is published because object owners forget to update
> the whois information as changes occur within their organization
> (staff changes, etc.)
>
> A secondary problem is data incompleteness:
>
> - Sometimes, there are changes to the structure of whois data, such
> as additional mandatory objects or attributes (for example, the
> IRT object). Object owners usually do not immediately make these
> changes to the objects they are responsible for. So there is
> always data missing in the whois database.
>
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> ---------------------------
>
> ARIN conducts an annual POC (point of contact) validation process:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#three6
>
> There is no similar proposal or policy in other RIRs; however, if the
> current APNIC proposal is successful in the APNIC region, the author
> plans to submit a similar proposal for AfriNIC, LACNIC, and RIPE
> regions.
>
> 4. Details of the proposal
> ---------------------------
>
> It is proposed that APNIC:
>
> 4.1 Send an update notification for all existing objects to the
> corresponding responsible organization once every X months.
>
> This notification will explain that object owners must log in the
> MyAPNIC Portal and verify all objects they are responsible for.
>
> The objects covered by this proposal are:
> - inetnum
> - inet6num
> - aut-num
> - person
> - role
> - irt
>
> Object owners must actively click and acknowledge the correctness of
> the objects they are responsible for.
>
> - If an object needs updating, or a new object needs to be added
> (for example, an IRT object), the owner can do this via
> MyAPNIC.
>
> - If a new object or attribute is made mandatory via another
> APNIC policy, then the responsible organization will be
> required to make this update, if not already made, at the time
> of notification.
>
> Even if the owner only verifies existing data and has not made any
> changes, the "changed" attribute in the whois database objects will
> include the date the owner verified the object. This will give
> users of whois an idea on how recently the object owner verified
> the accuracy of the data.
>
> 4.2 Send update notifications to responsible organizations at times
> shorter than the regular period described in section 4.1 if APNIC is
> made aware that the organization's object contain invalid
> information.
>
> For example, APNIC would send such a notification if notified of
> invalid information via the form at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/invalidcontact
>
> 4.3 Include a link in all whois output to APNIC form for reporting
> invalid contact information.
>
>
> 4.4 Handle non-responsive object owners in the following way:
>
> - Owners will have 60 days from the time of initial message from
> APNIC to confirm that their objects are up to date.
>
> - If the object owner does not respond to the initial message,
> reminder emails will be sent 10, 30 and 50 days after the original
> email.
>
> - After the 60-day period has passed, if the object owner has not
> verified their object details, APNIC will add the ranges of
> resources maintained by the non-responsive object owner to the
> publicly available list of resources described in 4.5.1 below.
>
> 4.5 Maintain two publicly available lists:
>
> 4.5.1 Resources associated with non-responsive object owners
>
> - This list would include resources associated with object
> owners who have not responded to APNIC's requests as
> described in section 4.4 above.
>
>
> 4.5.2 Resources associated with known invalid contact details
>
> - This list would include resources that have been reported
> to contain invalid contact details.
>
> - It is left to the discretion of the APNIC Secretariat
> whether to include an explicit remark in the corresponding
> database objects to show that the information in the objects
> is invalid.
>
> 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> 5.1 Advantages
>
> - A frequent reminder and the need to actively verify will solve the
> problem of forgetting to update objects.
>
> - All objects will follow the latest requirements for registration
> in the APNIC Whois Database. For example if there is an mandatory
> field added within X months every object will be updated.
>
> - More people will use the MyAPNIC Portal.
>
> 5.2 Disadvantages
>
> - No disadvantages are foreseen.
>
> 6. Effect on APNIC members
> ---------------------------
>
> Members have to update or verify their objects once every X months.
>
>
> 7. Effect on NIRs
> ------------------
>
> It would be of benefit to the whole Internet community if NIRs were to
> implement a similar service to keep their whois database up to date. But
> this would be another proposal.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
