[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8/Fraud Report

xiaofan yang nikiyangxf at gmail.com
Sat Apr 5 21:53:00 EDT 2014

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 15:34:22 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
To: David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8
Message-ID: <CBC5D4D5-FF0C-4B66-8B60-395667AE194C at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

I find this very interesting considering that both Stephen and I wrote NRPM
12 as an effort to prevent ARIN from over-reaching on enforcement and to
provide reassurance to the community that ARIN was focused on providing
appropriate protections of community resources and not merely bureaucracy
for the sake of bureaucracy.

I do not believe that the existing provisions in NRPM 4 or NRPM 6 for the
prevention of fraud and/or gaming of the system are unnecessary or obviated
by what is contained in section 12. Indeed, in order to function at all,
section 12 depends on those policies to provide guidance as to how and when
the enforcement mechanisms defined in section 12 are to be used.


On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:57 AM, David Huberman <David.Huberman at microsoft.com>

In my message you are replying to, I accidentally forgot to address the
hijacking issue. (Last message from me on list today, I promise!)

I think Owen DeLong and Stephen Sprunk did a really good job addressing the
whole hijacking and scamming problem when they authored NRPM section 12.
Between ARIN's legal protections in the RSA and as a business incorporated
in, and operating in, the United States, and the policy levers that NRPM 12
give, I think that whole issue is well covered by policy. In general, I do
not agree with section 4, 6, or 6 policy that tries to account for
scammers. We should make policy for the 99%, not the 1%. Let ARIN as a
business, and ARIN as an enforcer of NRPM 12, deal with that -- and report
back to us any deficiencies in tools.

*Hi Guys, *

*I have noticed a fraud application and had reported
tkt [ARIN-20140107-F1419] to ARIN long time ago. What i can have from ARIN
when i am asking an update is that  it is still under the investigation or
rely something meaning nothing. *

*I agree with both of your guys opinions here( refer to NRPM 12). However,
when a the fraud happens, ARIN should work as the enforcer to reclaim the
IPv4 back.   as i have already provided enough  evidences to approve the
fraud behaviour without receiving any solid reply from ARIN.   I will have
to choose to disclose all the evidences to the community in basis of which
the following conditions come first.*

*Condition 1: ARIN run out of its free pool or ARIN keeps allocating
another /15 to this Fraud.*

*Condition 2: Wait for another 3months.  Then totally ARIN has 6 months to
finalise  the Fraud investigation.  maybe as a bureau organisation  6-month
is too short for ARIN to finalise a Fraud investigation?*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140406/11853c2e/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list