Re: [apnic-talk] Errors in the APNIC WHOIS data base
Hi Ronald,
Delegations made by APNIC are protected by the APNIC maintainer APNIC-HM, while delegations made by NIRs are protected by NIR maintainers like MAINT-VN-VNNIC, MAINT-JPNIC etc.
The netnames you mentioned are associated with delegations made by the NIRs. If you find any delegations made to APNIC Members that are missing the org attribute, please report it to our Helpdesk team so we can fix it.
Apart from working with the NIRs, we are also attempting to contact the custodians of unused historical address space and encouraging them to maintain it under an APNIC account. In the event the custodians cannot be contacted, we plan to recycle that historical address space as per the policy on recovery of unused address space.
Thanks
Vivek
On 30/11/20, 9:15 am, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
In message <0C65A1F4-A043-45F9-8AAD-E483BFA598EE@apnic.net>,
Vivek Nigam <vivek@apnic.net> wrote:
>APNIC implemented the organization object in June 2017. All organizations
>that joined APNIC after this date had their organization objects
>automatically created and associated with their resources.
I'm not 100% sure that this is accurate, but perhaps I am misunderstanding
something subtle.
While working on my software tool which attempts to map arbitrary inetnum:
records, worldwide, to their corresponding organization names, I have
come upon a number of inetnum:/netname: things that appear to me to
be newer than June 2017, but where the inetnum: records in question
fail to contain any org: sub-field.
Many/most of these can be seen by simply querying the WHOIS data base
for the relevant netnames. Here are some examples of relevant netnames:
EHOSTICT
KDTIDC
RAKUTEN-CIDR-BLK-JP
CLOUDMEDIA-VN
BETINC
QTNET-CIDR-BLK-JP
AROGAYA
INTERLINK-CIDR-BLK-JP
FBDC-CIDR-BLK-JP
These are just a few examples.
Also and separately, it appears to me that in some (many?) cases, entities
that joined APNIC -before- June 2017 have been granted number resource
allocations -after- June, 2017, and those inetnum: records thus also,
in many cases, fail to contain and org: sub-field.
These cases are also problematic, and I think that one good way to encourage
older organizations that have not yet entered into a formal contractual
relationship with APNIC to do so now would be to stop giving those
organizations additional number resources.
Regards,
rfg
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list
apnic-talk@lists.apnic.net
https://aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmailman.apnic.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fapnic-talk&data=04%7C01%7C%7C4e8fa2f9601b43537dce08d894bc98f3%7C127d8d0d7ccf473dab096e44ad752ded%7C0%7C0%7C637422885054477876%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=sBSZIe%2F0zVIrhlEmc1DkaPLvfa7a7%2Bqi8CASHBQ2qMw%3D&reserved=0