[arin-ppml] Low Utilization.
On 11/5/2010 6:16 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> In message<92568641-795E-47D6-BC67-5EAC01BB124F at arin.net>,
> John Curran<jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> Low utilization does not create number resource fraud, per se,
> I understand that. Yes, low utilization doesn't create fraud per se, however
> if somebody came to you and obtained X (e.g. a /19) by making representation
> Y to you (e.g. we're gonna have 300 more customers and 10 additional routers
> within six months) and if it turns out that representation Y was just bullcrap,
> told to you to get you to part with resource X, well, then, that is pretty
> much the dictionary definition of fraud.
> You can call it whatever you like, but it is still fraud.
>>> And as I also asked you in private e-mail (also without any reply) does
>>> ARIN care about and/or will ARIN _do_ anything about deliberately fradulent
>>> sub-allocation WHOIS records?
>> If a party requests address space based on fraudulent data, we are very
>> interested. Please report such.
> Sorry, but I have to ask... Does what you just said answer the question I
> asked? If so, how? (Help me out here. I guess that I'm a little slow on
> the uptake, because I actually can't quite decypher how your answer relates
> to the question I asked.)
The problem here is that fraud requires intent.
If "PetSockPuppet Company" has this really great business plan, lots of
money from investors and gets a /8 from ARIN based on that - then a year
later is bankrupt, and then the bankruptcy holding company sets on the
/8 for the next decade, that does NOT meet the legal definition of
fraud. But, the resources are tied up just the same as if a current
concern lied to get the /8 to spam with.
True story, Southern Pacific Funding, their bankruptcy is public record,
they are STILL PAYING for a website.
Their bankruptcy was a decade ago.
This kind of thing is far, far more common than you would think.