From mike at mathbox.com Tue Dec 4 17:59:49 2007 From: mike at mathbox.com (Michael Thomas - Mathbox) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 17:59:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Test Message-ID: <200712041759346.SM02988@mikesplace> Test Michael Thomas Mathbox 978-683-6718 1-877-MATHBOX (Toll Free) From dean at av8.com Fri Dec 28 01:20:29 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:20:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations Message-ID: [ARIN agrees that discussion to recall Board members, to conduct investigations of ARIN expenditures, and to stop certain ARIN expenditures does not violate the ARIN AUP.] The topics above are mutually agreed by ARIN to be "on topic". I have received a letter from ARIN attorney Michael Socarras asserting a large number of things. The letter increases the scope greatly. My attorneys are still analyzing the letter, its claims, and the issues raised--there are a lot of issues. I cannot yet comment on the entire letter. However, provisionally, my attorney can assure me of the following: 1. The character of a Board member is a relevant and proper business issue. 2. Truth is an absolute defense to claims of libel. 3. Regardless of whether a member can compel a corporation to produce requested information, it is still a proper business purpose to ask business questions and to post that no responses have been made. My attorney has also advised, provisionally, that the first sentence above be placed on all messages relating to efforts to recall ARIN board members and to investigate ARIN, or to dispute the propriety of expenditures, until we analyze the the letter and respond to it. With the above in mind, the status of the six issues follows: Issue I. Legacy RSA Issue II. $50,000 Transfer to NANOG Issue III. Unusual amount of ARIN employee attendence at NANOG Issue IV. Familiarity and conflict of interest of ARIN employees with NANOG attendees Issue V. Waste of money on Conferences such as VON Issue VI. Character of Board Members Issue I. Legacy RSA Update: I have discovered that Kremen v. Cohen (9th Cir. 2003), citing other cases that establish that domain names are intangible property subject to conversion if they are wrongly transferred. Kremen also argued, but failed to establish that NSI had a third party beneficial contract with the government. It seems this is an evidentiary issue that could be cured by more complete evidence in the case of IP Address Blocks. ARIN has not obtained a formal legal opinion justifying the (improper) threats of denial of whois and in-addr.arpa services to Legacy holders who do not sign the Legacy RSA and transfer their rights to ARIN. Issue II. $50,000 Transfer to NANOG I have discovered through analyzing NANOG records that 6 Board members are participant beneficiaries of NANOG, possibly all 7. The only person to even potentially disclose their conflict of interest was Bill Woodcock, when he "abstained" from voting on this matter. He noted that he did not "recuse", by which I understand that he participated in the decision but did not vote. None of the other Board members disclosed a conflict of interest even though all have, at least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Board Member Meetings attended Mtgs Affil ARIN ARIN Speaker Scott Bradner 3 0 0 John Curran 16 9 0 Lee Howard 3 0 0 Bill Manning 20 2 0 Ray Plzak 15 13 4+2 unknown Paul Vixie 17 0 0 Bill Woodcock 29 0 0 Note: This is just from the records available. Early Nanog Attendence records are spotty or non-existant. Attendence status of as "Paid", "No Charge", "Speaker" is sometimes omitted or unreported. Note: All of Scott Bradner's attendence was reported as a speaker affiliated with Harvard University. Question: Did ARIN compensate Board member John Curran's attendence at NANOG? Question: Did ARIN compensate Board member Bill Manning's attendence at NANOG? Question: Did ARIN compensate Board member Ray Plzak's attendence at NANOG? Question: Was Board member Scott Bradner compensated for his NANOG speaking engagements where he asserted affiliation with Harvard University? (compensation includes reimbursing, paying, or waiving costs for travel, meals, hotels, meeting fees, and stipends) Issue III. Unusual amount of ARIN employee attendence at NANOG So far, I've found 104 Meeting attendences (estimated $45000 to NANOG, probably represents $135000 expense to ARIN with hotel, travel, meals. More considering lost work. The following employees are known to have attended NANOG, along with their department and job title: Only one person on this list seems appropriate to attend NANOG: The network administrator, Michael O'Neill 1|Ray Stark Engineering Windows System Administrator 2|Erika Goedrich Member Services Membership Coordinator 1|Abram Thielke Engineering Software Engineer 3|Tim Christensen Engineering System Architect 1|Jon Worley Registration Services Senior Resource Analyst 1|Matt Rowley Engineering Unix Systems Administrator 2|Ming Yan Engineering Database Administrator 4|Jason Byrne Member Services Membership Operations Manager 13|Ray Plzak Executive President & CEO 6|Susan Hamlin Member Services Director of Member Services 7|Michael O'Neill Engineering Network Administrator 1|Therese Colosi Human Resources Executive Assistant 20|Leslie Nobile Registration Services Director of Registration Services 17|Richard Jimmerson Executive Chief Information Officer 2|Nate Davis Executive Chief Operations Officer 4|Cathy Clements Registration Services Principal Resource Analyst 2|Cathy Murphy Engineering Principal Software Engineer 1|Darren Kara Engineering Database Administrator 4|Einar Bohlin Member Services Policy Analyst 6|Matt Ryanczak Engineering Systems Operations Manager 4|David Huberman Registration Services Technical Specialist 2|Erin Centanni Member Services Meeting Planner I have a list of 47 more people who may be either AC members, Board members, or previous employees. If anyone has a list of past employees, please let me know. Question: Why is ARIN paying to have the rest of these people learn to configure BGP and configure spam filters, and other technical network operation tasks? This seems to be recoverable. Question: Why did the auditor not question this expense? Question: How much has been spend sending ARIN employees to NANOG? Question: What ARIN employees have been sent to NANOG? Issue IV. Familiarity, conflict of interest of ARIN employees with NANOG attendees Relating to Issue II and Issue III; I have a message from a frequent NANOG attendee (13 meetings) who says that a recent IP Address Allocation was done in a few hours, start to finish. This seems quite odd, and contrary to what most people experience. Furthermore, it seems impossible to fully and properly evaluate an IP Address Block request in so short a time. Question: What is the average time to respond to an IP Address Allocation? Question: Is there too much familiarity with NANOG attendees interacting socially with some many ARIN employees. Question: What ethics standards are stated to ARIN employees about personal relationships and conflicts of interest? Issue V. Waste of money on Conferences such as VON ARIN has not reported how much money it spends on each conference. Question: Does ARIN have a marketing plan and is ARIN collecting reasonable marketing metrics on the effectiveness of its marketing activities. Issue VI. Character of Board Members Facts have been posted which raise questions about the character of Board member Paul Vixie, particularly the issues raised in Exactis v. MAPS, which cited charges of Tortious Interference with Contract, Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation and Extortion, violation of the Colorado Communications Privacy Act, violation of the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the Colorado Antitrust act. A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was obtained. Vixie and MAPS attempts to have the case dismissed failed, and MAPS settled. MAPS no longer blocks Exactis. Update: More information may be found regarding activities relating to the suit Exactis v. MAPS in the "Motion and Memorandum in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction" at http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html Question: When did Board members first learn of these facts about other Board members? Question: When did ARIN management first learn of these facts? Question: What actions did management take to ensure that the Board member qualification questionaire reflected these facts? -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jer at mia.net Fri Dec 28 01:44:42 2007 From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:44:42 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <872F6ED3-DF26-41A2-B4B4-7CF5FC9BD4B3@mia.net> On Dec 28, 2007, at 12:20 AM, Dean Anderson wrote: > > > With the above in mind, the status of the six issues follows: > > Issue I. Legacy RSA > Issue II. $50,000 Transfer to NANOG > Issue III. Unusual amount of ARIN employee attendence at NANOG > Issue IV. Familiarity and conflict of interest of ARIN employees with > NANOG attendees > Issue V. Waste of money on Conferences such as VON > Issue VI. Character of Board Members > Might want to add "Waste of money on comic books" to that list... ;-) Regards, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey e-mail: jer at mia.net _____________________________________ Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net 401 Host Drive www.dslone.com Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com Phone: (262)248-6759 www.bella-mia.com Fax: (262)248-6959 www.thednsplace.com From iis-arin at impulse.net Fri Dec 28 11:45:17 2007 From: iis-arin at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:45:17 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations] Message-ID: <4775281D.5030404@impulse.net> Dean Anderson wrote: [Bobbitt...] > Issue VI. Character of Board Members > > Facts have been posted which raise questions about the character of > Board member Paul Vixie, particularly the issues raised in Exactis v. > MAPS, which cited charges of Tortious Interference with Contract, > Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations, violation of > the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Intentional and Negligent > Misrepresentation and Extortion, violation of the Colorado > Communications Privacy Act, violation of the Colorado Organized Crime > Control Act, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the > Colorado Antitrust act. A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was > obtained. Vixie and MAPS attempts to have the case dismissed failed, > and MAPS settled. MAPS no longer blocks Exactis. Facts? ITYM allegations in a seven-year-old civil suit perhaps? > Update: More information may be found regarding activities relating to > the suit Exactis v. MAPS in the "Motion and Memorandum in Support of > Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction" at > http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html > > Question: When did Board members first learn of these facts about other > Board members? Well, if those board members were at all actively involved in Internet operations way back in 2000, they probably learned of them about seven years ago when the Exactis vs. MAPS lawsuit was active. It was very well known at the time by just about anyone who knew how to spell "SMTP". MAPS was generally regarded as the good guy. Again, your use of the term "facts" is IMHO pushing the envelope. > Question: When did ARIN management first learn of these facts? Probably within that same time frame. That water is well under the bridge, has evaporated and returned as rain worldwide several times over. Ditto comment re "facts". > Question: What actions did management take to ensure that the Board > member qualification questionaire reflected these facts? Ditto "facts". Does the questionnaire ask if any corporation with which one was affiliated almost a decade ago has ever been sued by anyone else? Does it have questions along the lines of, "Were you ever disliked by anyone with access to the Internet?" Is this questionnaire available online? I personally don't see the relevance of a seven-year-old civil filing, long since settled, primarily directed against a corporation that also names the principals regarding one's suitability as an ARIN board member. Have you done any research whatsoever into the history of MAPS, that they deliberately took a bullet in the early skirmishes of the spam wars? Are you aware that the document you reference was written by the opposing lawyers, so is likely to be somewhat one-sided? Have you beheaded the URL you cite to just http://www.dotcomeon.com/ to determine with what degree of seriousness its material should be taken and whether the site owner just might have an axe to grind? Furrfu. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From dean at av8.com Fri Dec 28 14:38:33 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:38:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations] In-Reply-To: <4775281D.5030404@impulse.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Jay Hennigan wrote: > Dean Anderson wrote: > > [Bobbitt...] ???? What does "Bobbitt" mean? > > Issue VI. Character of Board Members > > > > Facts have been posted which raise questions about the character of > > Board member Paul Vixie, particularly the issues raised in Exactis v. > > MAPS, which cited charges of Tortious Interference with Contract, > > Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations, violation of > > the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Intentional and Negligent > > Misrepresentation and Extortion, violation of the Colorado > > Communications Privacy Act, violation of the Colorado Organized Crime > > Control Act, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the > > Colorado Antitrust act. A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was > > obtained. Vixie and MAPS attempts to have the case dismissed failed, > > and MAPS settled. MAPS no longer blocks Exactis. > > Facts? ITYM allegations in a seven-year-old civil suit perhaps? A TRO is a fact. A TRO is citable in subsequent litigation. A previous TRO helps establish that similar facts are sufficient to establish similar claims. A TRO is a decision that the facts cited, if true, are sufficient to establish the claims made and that the plaintiff can prevail absent false facts or some defense. MAPS and Vixie tried vigorously to have the case dismissed, using defenses they also cited in their response. Those efforts to have the case dismiss failed. Those are facts, too. I cite the case because the activities brought to light in the case have bearing on the character of the persons involved. > > Update: More information may be found regarding activities relating to > > the suit Exactis v. MAPS in the "Motion and Memorandum in Support of > > Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction" at > > http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html > > > > Question: When did Board members first learn of these facts about other > > Board members? > > Well, if those board members were at all actively involved in Internet > operations way back in 2000, they probably learned of them about seven > years ago when the Exactis vs. MAPS lawsuit was active. The above is speculation and speculation is of no value. If you are a Board member, previous Board member, or you have evidence of when Board members knew (e.g. email messages from Board member discussing the case), please let me know. Members of the Advisory Council and ARIN employees may also have knowledge of this. > It was very well known at the time by just about anyone who knew how > to spell "SMTP". MAPS was generally regarded as the good guy. I am aware that MAPS was, in 2000, generally regarded as the "good guy". But in 2000, many things about MAPS weren't generally known: it wasn't known that MAPS was a for-profit operation. (announced in 2002). It generally wasn't known that Vixie and others were on the Board of directors of a spammer (a commercial bulk emailer) that was competing with Exactis in 2000. It also wasn't generally known in 2000 that MAPS employees were employeed assisting spammers (e.g. Scott Richter, Opt-in-real-big) with list-washing (discovered 2003). The full facts show less "good guy". > Again, your use of the term "facts" is IMHO pushing the envelope. I think perhaps you just don't like the full facts. That doesn't make them false or not facts. > > Question: What actions did management take to ensure that the Board > > member qualification questionaire reflected these facts? > > Ditto "facts". Does the questionnaire ask if any corporation with which > one was affiliated almost a decade ago has ever been sued by anyone > else? Does it have questions along the lines of, "Were you ever > disliked by anyone with access to the Internet?" It does ask other questions. > Is this questionnaire available online? Yes. Its on ARIN's website, in the section on elections. I can send you a URL if you can't find it. > I personally don't see the relevance of a seven-year-old civil filing, > long since settled, primarily directed against a corporation that also > names the principals regarding one's suitability as an ARIN board > member. Well, RICO claims have a ten year statute of limitations; the case is potentially still relevant to future civil and criminal claims. However, I bring this case up as a question of character. The past activities of a person are relevant to their present character, even if they were 7 years ago. Seven years is not a long time for changes in character. I am aware of no significant changes in Mr. Vixie's behavior or character in that time; Just the contrary, in fact, as previously posted. > Have > you done any research whatsoever into the history of MAPS, that they > deliberately took a bullet in the early skirmishes of the spam wars? I have done quite a bit of research on MAPS. I don't know what you mean by "deliberately took a bullet". > Are you aware that the document you reference was written by the > opposing lawyers, so is likely to be somewhat one-sided? I am aware of that. However, lawyers are bound by Model Rules of Professional Conduct. A corporate counsel have to abide by Model Professional Rules of Conduct rule 1.6 and 1.13, which in some cases, cause them to disclose information about their corporate clients. The Model Rules 1.6 and 1.13 can be found at http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html Corporate counsel is counsel to the corporation, not the employee. The rules of conduct of lawyers were changed in response to Enron and Worldcom, etc. For those of you who are interested, there is a very interesting discussion in "Enron, WorldCom, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Corporate Governance, Financial Disclosure, Auditing and Other Issues" ALI-ABA course of study materials. I also found interesting Section III, "Recomendations Regarding the Conduct of Lawyers", page 107: "The ABA has long advised that lawyers providing transactional opinions that may be relied on by third parties cannot blindly accept facts posited by a client; they must question and investigate the factual predicate for their advice,[...]" Note 33 on the same page states: "The lawyer who accepts as true the facts which the promoter tells him, when the lawyer should know that a further inquiry would disclose that these facts are untrue, also gives a false opinion." Are you asserting Exactis' attorney committed some violation of professional conduct? Exactis' attorney went on to become a U.S. Attorney. And, as I recall, either Vixie's or MAPS attorney was chastised for misconduct in the case. > Have you beheaded the URL you cite to just http://www.dotcomeon.com/ > to determine with what degree of seriousness its material should be > taken and whether the site owner just might have an axe to grind? Yes, I have seen the site. Dr. Halmu has long tracked Mr. Vixie and MAPS history. I am aware of no factual errors on the site. However, that is of no consequence to the copies of legal documents posted there. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From mhalligan at bitpusher.com Fri Dec 28 14:51:09 2007 From: mhalligan at bitpusher.com (Michael T. Halligan) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 28, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Dean Anderson wrote: > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Jay Hennigan wrote: > >> Dean Anderson wrote: >> >> [Bobbitt...] > > ???? What does "Bobbitt" mean? We can safely assume it means "cut" From mksmith at adhost.com Fri Dec 28 16:41:49 2007 From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:41:49 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316032AB1A9@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Hello Dean: If you have engaged legal counsel and ARIN has engaged legal counsel then you and we shouldn't be having any discussions about this AT ALL. This is now a legal matter, not a ARIN-Discuss matter. Regards, Mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dean at av8.com Fri Dec 28 18:10:28 2007 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:10:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316032AB1A9@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Message-ID: [ARIN agrees that discussion to recall Board members, to conduct investigations of ARIN expenditures, and to stop certain ARIN expenditures does not violate the ARIN AUP.] On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: > Hello Dean: > > > > If you have engaged legal counsel and ARIN has engaged legal counsel > then you and we shouldn't be having any discussions about this AT ALL. > This is now a legal matter, not a ARIN-Discuss matter. The matters in the letter are a legal matter, and I have not discussed them. The investigations, by mutual agreement, can continue. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From iis-arin at impulse.net Fri Dec 28 20:50:38 2007 From: iis-arin at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:50:38 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4775A7EE.1010504@impulse.net> Dean Anderson wrote: > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007, Jay Hennigan wrote: > >> Dean Anderson wrote: >> >> [Bobbitt...] > > ???? What does "Bobbitt" mean? To snip off. Google "Lorena Bobbitt". >> Facts? ITYM allegations in a seven-year-old civil suit perhaps? > > A TRO is a fact. A TRO is citable in subsequent litigation. A previous > TRO helps establish that similar facts are sufficient to establish > similar claims. Your citation wasn't a TRO, but a pleading in support of one. Note also that this is ancient history, and note that the "T" in TRO stands for "Temporary". > I cite the case because the activities brought to light in the case have > bearing on the character of the persons involved. Could you be more specific? On second thought, don't. If you have reason to feel that a board member should be removed, instead of trolling here, follow the procedures in the bylaws. > The above is speculation and speculation is of no value. [snippage] > It > generally wasn't known that Vixie and others were on the Board of > directors of a spammer (a commercial bulk emailer) that was competing > with Exactis in 2000. It also wasn't generally known in 2000 that MAPS > employees were employeed assisting spammers (e.g. Scott Richter, > Opt-in-real-big) with list-washing (discovered 2003). The full facts > show less "good guy". The above sounds like the valueless speculation you dismiss earlier. Evidence? > Well, RICO claims have a ten year statute of limitations; the case is > potentially still relevant to future civil and criminal claims. Well, then instead of trolling here, go talk to the US Attorney's office and implore them to arrest this career criminal. Regarding civil claims, the Exactis suit was settled long ago. > However, I bring this case up as a question of character. The past > activities of a person are relevant to their present character, even if > they were 7 years ago. Seven years is not a long time for changes in > character. I am aware of no significant changes in Mr. Vixie's behavior > or character in that time; Just the contrary, in fact, as previously > posted. By previously posted, do you mean your unsubstantiated speculation that Mr. Vixie and/or MAPS were assisting spammers? > Are you asserting Exactis' attorney committed some violation of > professional conduct? Not at all, merely that he was employed specifically to argue against MAPS and Vixie, and not an impartial observer. > Exactis' attorney went on to become a U.S. Attorney. Well, then he sounds like the perfect individual to pursue the RICO criminal case. Knock yourself out. IMHO, this discussion is essentially a troll. I will no longer feed the troll here. I respectfully suggest that if you are serious about removing a duly elected ARIN board member that you follow the procedure outlined in the bylaws, Article VI Section 10, and take it off-list. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From michael.dillon at bt.com Sun Dec 30 07:31:19 2007 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:31:19 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 2. Truth is an absolute defense to claims of libel. Not here it isn't! You have to go to a court of law in order to use the "truth" defense. On this list, if you constantly annoy us then we don't have to pay attention to you any more or read any of your messages. > Question: Why is ARIN paying to have the rest of these people > learn to configure BGP and configure spam filters, and other > technical network operation tasks? This seems to be recoverable. Question: If you haven't even got the faintest clue of what NANOG is and what kind of things are discussed at NANOG, then why are you wasting our time with this nonsense? > I have a message from a frequent NANOG attendee (13 meetings) > who says that a recent IP Address Allocation was done in a > few hours, start to finish. This seems quite odd, and > contrary to what most people experience. Furthermore, it > seems impossible to fully and properly evaluate an IP Address > Block request in so short a time. I have also had at least one IP address allocationthat was done in a few hours but I have had others, with the same company, that dragged on for months. The one time that we got it done in a few hours was also the time that we submitted a full set of data to backup the request including some charts and graphs and a full dump of our reassignment data down to the /32 level. Also, by that time we had established a reasonable reputation with ARIN over the course of 4 or 5 allocation requests. --Michael Dillon P.S. by now everyone knows where to contact you if they wish to join in your legal actions against the ARIN board. Please do not post anything further to the ARIN mailing lists about this. From ml at t-b-o-h.net Sun Dec 30 09:38:38 2007 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:38:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Status of Investigations In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200712301438.lBUEcchH097285@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > I have a message from a frequent NANOG attendee (13 meetings) > > who says that a recent IP Address Allocation was done in a > > few hours, start to finish. This seems quite odd, and > > contrary to what most people experience. Furthermore, it > > seems impossible to fully and properly evaluate an IP Address > > Block request in so short a time. > > I have also had at least one IP address allocationthat was done > in a few hours but I have had others, with the same company, > that dragged on for months. The one time that we got it done > in a few hours was also the time that we submitted a full set > of data to backup the request including some charts and graphs > and a full dump of our reassignment data down to the /32 level. > Also, by that time we had established a reasonable reputation > with ARIN over the course of 4 or 5 allocation requests. > I've gotten IPs twice for my previous company. The first time it took a few days, as I was new to the process and what was required. The second time took only a few hours, and as was said above, I had spreadsheets and listings and text justifications on every used IP in use. I've never gone to NANOG. I've not run with the big boys for the most part, and my ISP at its height only made about $2.7MM. So I'm far from a "golden child" in this situation. But apparently, oddly enough, you follow what they want for allocations, and amazingly it SEEMS to happen fairly quick. Tuc/TBOH (This was for TTSG Internet Services,Inc)