[arin-ppml] Low Utilization.

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri Nov 5 08:46:03 EDT 2010

On Nov 5, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

> In message <0F135456-F298-40D4-95BB-5C4087637B67 at arin.net>, 
> John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> {... big buch of non-responsive platitudes snipped... }
>> Actually, I was providing clarity regarding the state of the registry infor
>> mation on legacy resources and what constitutes number resource fraud.  I t
>> hought that was what you were asking about, but easily could have been wron
>> g.
> No, John, I wasn't asking about any registry information.  And I think you
> knew that.  I was asking the same question that I have asked you repeatedly
> in private e-mail over several weeks, without any response from you whatsoever.
> Again, just to repeat what I have already asked you in private e-mail (without
> any reply), I, and also others I know would very much like to know exactly
> how much unmitigated and unambiguous waste and fraud some entity holding
> ARIN number resources can get away with before ARIN will see fit to do
> anything about it.  I mean how much does the waste/fraud have to be?  What
> is the "action" threshold?  25% ? 50% ? 75% ?

Ron - 
  Low utilization does not create number resource fraud, per se, i.e. 
  there is no "threshold".  I've already explained what constitutes
  number resource fraud in an earlier reply, so I will not repeat it 
  for sake of brevity. 
  It is quite possible that low utilization will prevent someone from 
  getting additional resources or from transferring all of the number
  resources based on current M&A transfer policy.  It is also possible
  that I'll have a discussion with a party about their resource   
  utilization as a result of the resource review policy. None of 
  these circumstances constitutes number resource 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?
> I have already a record of several dozens of these... all being used by
> a handful of crooked ISPs to give cover to their pet snowshoe spammers
> (to whom, as I have told you, they typically give a /24 for each single
> actual host).
> So, if I report them all, will ARIN even bother to investigate any of these
> bogus/fradulent WHOIS records?  Or should I not even waste my time, e.g.
> because ARIN doesn't give a flying fig about SUB-allocation WHOIS records?
> (Or should I not waste my time because as long as any given ARIN member stays
> below, e.g., 15% fraud, ARIN will consider that inconsequential, in the
> Grand Scheme of Things.)
> I really would like to know, you know, before I waste all that time typing
> into your fraud form, just to be told, e.g. that ARIN doesn't ``police''
> fraud in SUB-allocation records.

If a party requests address space based on fraudulent data, we are very 
interested.  Please report such.

>> Ron - I believe I've extended you every courtesy, even in absence of same.
> Well, ya know, answering, rather than just ignoring my private e-mails would
> have been nice, even if only to tell me to buzz off.  (After all, you _did_
> previously suggest to me that you'd be willing to answer my questions off
> list, but then, in practice, apparently not so much.)  But we'll let that
> go for now.

At present, I have two private emails from you that I have not yet replied to;
this is not an indication that I don't intend to reply at all, only that I get 
a bit of email as one might imagine and therefore have to prioritize when the
entry rate exceeds the processing rate.  It appears that I've sent you more 
than a dozen private replies in the month of October, so it is disingenuous to
say you've been ignored.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list