[arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question
hannigan at gmail.com
Wed Jun 24 08:53:57 EDT 2015
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson <richardj at arin.net>
>> Hello Adam,
>> Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting.
>> We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the
>> past few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through
>> this system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have
>> resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the
>> denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued
> According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further
> That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless
> to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the "Results" page appears to
> be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of
> There’s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me.
> Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes
That's possible, but I think this raises a question. What exactly is
fraud? Generally, my guess is the only person who has any clue as to what a
fraud is or if its been committed is the person filling out the
application. The numbers are generally null because it's near undetectable
other than a whistle blower coming forward.
> As noted by ARIN staff earlier in this conversation, the vast majority of
> fraud reports they receive are out of scope…
> General ISP complaints
> SPAM complaints
> This is not surprising as probably about 1% of all internet users even
> know what an RIR is, let alone how to distinguish between RIR Fraud and
> other issues.
> Some sort of additional resources like a FAQ on what might or might not be
> out of scope could help to reduce the amount of baseless submissions as
> well as additional questions on the form that if selected nack a report. If
> staff isn't going to keep the page updated why keep it at all?
> On this we agree… The form letter I suggested should contain a link to
> this FAQ, as should the fraud report filing page.
That's seems more like an abuse like auto-responder which is easy to fire
and forget. I'd like to see more eyes on the complaints, but an attempt to
increase the quality of what they will put eyes to.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML