[arin-ppml] (no subject)

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Mon Dec 7 15:59:38 EST 2009

Chris Engel wrote:
> Bill,
> 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? 

The courts are already clogged and do not want even more work piled
on them that is not important.  They would like to stick to issuing
disclosure orders to people who have actually had thousands of
dollars removed from their bank accounts via fraud and are suing,
and really don't want to have to do this for people who are complaining
that their e-mail box has a lot of spam in it.

 > 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?

For the same reason that the burden to the cop of proving you were 
speeding is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt" when he writes you a
ticket.  The courts have recognized that there is a class of complaints
that is not serious enough to warrant innocent-before-proven-guilty,
proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt, jury trials, and all the other
trappings of justice that we are accustomed to in criminal trials.

This is where SWIP data is, is right in this realm.

> 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?

In which case the ISP can retaliate with the same games that the
competitor is engaging in.

For example, Verizon and Comcast found this out.  Originally, Comcast
sold only cable TV, and then they moved into selling Internet 
connectivity later.  Verizon at that time sold voiceline services and
Internet DSL.  Then, Comcast moved into voice services. Verizon rightly
regarded this as a violation of the mutual non-aggression pact, and
dropped 3 billion into FIOS TV in retaliation.

End result:  neither gained market share.  For what Comcast gained in
voice, they lost in TV sales to FIOS TV.  Ultimately, both Verizon and
Comcast suffered billions of dollars in lost money since both had to
build out networks - Comcast had to build out a voice network, Verizon
had to build out a TV network.

This is why these sorts of predatory maneuvers only work in the movies.

> 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?

The fraud complaint is far more likely.  As I explained, the ISP 
creating a targeted sales list to go raiding is itself going to get
raided.  More of a concern, though, is the ISP going raiding is
diverting attention from it's own customers, and is more likely
to lose them as a result.

> 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?

I refer you to Aesop's fable "The Goatherd and the Wild Goats" to
understand some things about business that I believe you are not
familiar with.


> 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 
> _______________________________________________ PPML You are
> receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public
> Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your
> mailing list subscription at: 
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact
> info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list