[arin-ppml] IP Address Block Clean up

[John Santos]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Randy Bush wrote:

> as i replied on nanog
> 
>     From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
>     Subject: Re: Hijacked Blocks
>     To: "Azinger, Marla" <marla.azinger at frontiercorp.com>
>     Cc: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>, North American Network Operators
>      Group <nanog at nanog.org>
>     Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:47:59 +0900
> 
>     > I haven't followed this entire string.  Are you saying ARIN is repeatedly handing out address space to known abusers?  If that's the case then yes, some form of policy should be worked on. 
> 
>     i might walk more slowly and with a bit less self-righteousness.  this
>     is not a simple area.  are we sure we want the rirs to become the net
>     content police?  how are they to judge?
> 
>     e.g., prudent isps act against a customer when there is a court order,
>     not when the net gossip says they're bad actors.  i.e., the decision of
>     who is a bad actor is passed on to the society's normal judicial
>     process.
> 
>     randy
> 
> not that i think that bad actors should not be inhibited.  i am just not
> sure the arin is the best way of doing so.  perhaps looking at how to
> streamline the judicial process is an avenue that needs to be more fully
> explored before we become the net judges and jury.
> 
> [ i also shudder thinking about a discussion here of how many commercial
> emails a day can dance on the head of a spam pin, etc. ]
> 
> randy

In the scenario described earlier, the Bad Guy (BG) was acquiring
addresses, not paying his renewal fee after a year, then applying
for and getting a new address block, repeat.  The poster could tell
it was the same BG because although he was using a new business name
each time, the contact info was the same (personal name, mailing
address, etc., I would guess.)  In this case, I think it would
be easy for ARIN to address:  You can't get a new block if you've
failed to pay up on your old block, or otherwise violated their RSA.
(I suppose BG could be allowed to re-instate the old block (if still
available) by paying up his back fees, but this would defeat the BG's
purpose, which is to get new, untainted addresses.  However, it would
let someone legitimate who worked for or owned a failed business to
start over, especially if their original addresses were untainted and
they were happy to have them back.)  

This wouldn't stop BG dead in his tracks (he could always hire someone
to front for him), but it might slow him down.

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539