[arin-ppml] (no subject)

Chris Engel cengel at sponsordirect.com
Mon Dec 7 14:49:13 EST 2009


In each of those cases, there is no need for timeliness of access for that information and there is an appropriate venue for providing justification to get access to that information in a non-time sensitive manner.

In the case of serving an entity with legal papers, why would it NOT be appropriate to expect the plaintiff to petition the courts for an order to reveal the identity of the person you want to serve? THAT is the burden placed upon plaintiffs when wishing to serve posters on individual forums/sites, holders of e-mail addresses or individual IP address holders (rather then holders of a static block) is it not? Why should the burden be ANY less in this instance?

Why, practically, should holding 9 IP's rather then 7 change the requirements for that burden

In terms of "checking up on competitors"..... A large part of justification for IP space also has to do with expected upcoming projects.... do you propose that ARIN should also publish organizations future business plans (which would normally be covered by NDA's) for their competitors to "check up" on them as well?

ARIN, who has no vested interest in which ISP an individual customer uses already has the capacity to investigate fraud. Why would you vest that responsibility with competitor(s) who would have a vested interest in throwing as many hurdles in front of their competition as possible and who may have serious motivation to misuse such information?

Which would be more likely an ISP using such information to justify an honest complaint of fraud on the part of a competitor or to create a targeted sales list to try to steal the competitors customers?  ARIN's staff has both the capacity and the responsibility to investigate fraud as well as the means for doing something about it and lacks any motivation to use that information for other purposes. An ISP has little real capacity or responsibility to investigate a competitor and lacks the tools to do anything about it other then to ask ARIN to investigate....but has a great deal of motivation to use it for other purposes, does it not?

Christopher Engel

-----Original Message-----
From: wherrin at gmail.com [mailto:wherrin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 1:58 PM
To: Chris Engel
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] (no subject)

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Chris Engel <cengel at sponsordirect.com> wrote:
> I mean how is it neccesary/useful for some-one to know
>that Block X is owned by ACME Corp at 123 South Main
>Street, if the entity who is ACTUALY responsible for handling technical
>issues for them is Computer Consultants, Inc ?
> I would think that the information that would be required
>to address the issue would be...
> IP Address #: x.x.x.x
> Tech Contact E-mail:  abuse at ComputerConsultants.com
> Tech Contact Phone: 1-555-555-5555
> Why is there a need to publish anything more then that?

So you can serve them with legal papers.

So that an ISP who suspects its competitor of fraud can spot-check the competitor's SWIP records against the local business listings and give ARIN a real complaint.


William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list