[arin-ppml] Regarding unauthorized changes (Re: Policy question)

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 7:29 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Jo Rhett <jrhett at netconsonance.com> wrote:
>> This is exactly the same situation which can happen with a house title.
>> Houses have been sold right out from under their owners by exactly the means
>> you listed here in this message. It is not the fault of the city which
>> records the title change based on proper documentation given to them.
>>
>> For people in this situation to recover their house, they need to open a
>> court case and submit documentation proving that they own their house and
>> they they did not sell it, and that the person who did sell it was not
>> authorized to do so, etc etc.  There is well established legal precedence
>> for this.
>
> Hi Jo,
>
> You missed a step.
>
> At the point where title changes hands, the legitimate owners are
> *still in possession* of the house. To do anything with the house,
> anything at all, the fraudulent title holder must initiate eviction
> proceedings against the owner. The owner keeps possession until and
> unless those proceedings complete in the fraudster's favor. Which they
> generally don't. The actual fraudster is long gone and the otherwise
> honest folks who thought they bought a house are left holding the bag.
>
> Sucks for both of them and correcting the paper title can get
> expensive but the legitimate owner is rarely deprived of the use of
> the house in the mean time. The old saw is that "possession is nine
> tenths of the law."
>
> ARIN, on the other hand, has gone to great contractual lengths to
> assure that the paper, the title, the registration *is* the item
> possessed. "IP addresses are not property" as they like to say. Upon
> change of registration, the new registrant possesses the addresses,
> can change the RDNS, can alter the RPKI records and can have the
> routes announced without immediate recourse.
>
> So if centuries of jurisprudence on houses has built this onerous,
> multi-level barrier to fraudulent dispossession, what's ARIN's level
> of diligence for the often more valuable address blocks?
>
>
>> There is also a market where one can sue the title insurance company who was
>> supposed to do investigation to clear the title. But nobody can sue the
>> county who records the title change--they accept paperwork, they process
>> paperwork which is properly submitted
>
> That's because as a government, the county has sovereign immunity.
> ARIN is not a government and no government reviews and approves ARIN
> procedure.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Jeffrey Lyon
> <jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net> wrote:
>> I can't go into a lot of detail about my specific case as there is now
>> a court filing from what I understand. My bigger goal here is to
>> compel ARIN to adopt a process similar to UDRP that would allow
>> resource holder's to enforce their rights without blowing their rainy
>> day fund on a lawyer.
>
> Hi Jeffrey,
>
> Reports of injustice at the hands of ICANN's UDRP are legion, and
> that's where there's an intrinsic relationship between the disputed
> resource and the folks alleging rights to it: that name is my name -
> on and off the Internet.
>
> I would far prefer for ARIN to insist that disputes be settle in court
> as they do now. IMO, binding arbitration ought to be a crime anywhere
> that one of the parties to it lacked genuine choice about
> participating. It short circuits due process. Due process is expensive
> so when both parties to a dispute want to short circuit it, that's
> fine. But when its part of shrink wrap licenses and contracts of
> adhesion I have a real problem with it.
>
> Getting off that tangent, my major concern in this discussion is that
> while proceedings are ongoing, ARIN should act in the manner least
> likely to cause irreparable damage to the eventual victor. Where the
> dispute arose over a change to a record, the least damaging course of
> action is likely to be reverting that record to a state for which no
> timely challenge has been offered.
>
> Where a dispute arises because a record does not change, I have to
> think it is exactly correct for ARIN to insist on waiting for a court
> order before making any changes.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

William,

I would agree with you on almost every point you made. My major beef
is that the other party does not own a network. We own the network,
we're using the space, and we're the ones justifying it. With that
said, we also keep routing it whether the other party likes it or not.
It would be very easy for ARIN to revoke the space from the
non-qualified holder and reissue it to the company who is already
justifying its use.

-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President, Black Lotus Communications
mobile: (757) 304-0668 | gtalk: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com | skype: blacklotus.net