[arin-ppml] Use of the specified transfer policy

Ted Mittelstaedt tedm at ipinc.net
Tue Feb 15 17:41:44 EST 2011

On 2/15/2011 11:27 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2011, at 1:55 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> John, I think one possible difficulty on the fraud issue is that unlike
>> both the civil and criminal justice system (in the united states, at any
>> rate) none of the fraud proceedings are public.
>> If someone submits fraud evidence or even a strong suspicion based on
>> research in the whois database + direct experience, is there feedback?
> A fraud report results in a NRPM 12 resource review, and the address holder
> is an integral part of the review process.

I'm sure the address holder is - but the question was, is the person who
submitted the report also involved?  That may NOT be an address holder 
it may just be a guy out on the street there who happens to stumble
across something.

>> Are they included in the investigation?  If there is wrongdoing discovered
>> are they informed of any punishments meted out?  Without this, it is
>> understandable that people would feel fraud reports are going into a black
>> hole - and the lack of publicity also does not create examples of what is
>> and what isn't allowed.  Most human beings learn by example.
> The resource holder is informed of any action, and we produce summary
> reports for the community on the fraud reporting page.

But, is the person who filed the report informed of any action?  Or do 
they just have to keep looking at the summary reports and trying to 
guess if their complaint was acted on or not?

The summary reports do not serve as adequate examples.  Here are some
recent selections:

20100721-F639 ISP assigning IPv4 space without justification Section 12 
audit conducted

So, what happened?  What were the audit results?  Was the ISP doing this
or not?

20100814-F655 Report that 2 orgs are assigning IP addresses without 
justification Section 12 audits conducted on both


I also would love a bit more detail on this one:

20100819-F657 Report of spam emanating from org’s /15 Investigated, 
found justification meets ARIN policy requirements.

If that was snowshoe spamming and it fits in the NRPM then we definitely
need to modify the NRPM.


>> Martin, keep in mind that ARIN has no legal contract between it and
>> a true "Legacy" resource holder as they never signed anything with them,
>> and ARIN is not a governmental body.  It thus has little ability to bring
>> proceedings against a legacy holder who is violating ARIN's NRPM
> No proceedings are necessary to correct entries in the ARIN Whois database.
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list