[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <F6B352BB-13A2-43BB-A440-3A3F1019089C at arin.net>, 
John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>The registry is public.  The _requests_ to change the registry (which often
>require detailed technical and business information to meet the policies
>that this community sets) are not public.

Thanks for the clarification John.  That's a very very pretty point, and
one that causes me to wonder if I have misconstrued the allegations that
have been put forward to justify the proposal.

Has ARIN merely seen _requests_ to change the registry... requests which,
in 100% of the cases, ARIN has not actually acted upon... and which appear
ARIN staff to be suspicious and perhaps even fradulent in some way?

I quote directly from the original proposal problem statement:

     A significant percentage of organizations that receive blocks 
     from the waiting list subsequently issue these blocks to other 
     organizations via 8.3 or 8.4 transfers shortly after the one year...

Maybe I need to take a refresher course on plain English, but it appears
to me that this says that blocks *were* assigned, and that some such blocks
*were* subsequently transfered.  So it would appear that we are not talking
about mere confidential requests here, nor are we talking about any of the
confidential information that might relate in any way to such requests,
i.e. while the requests are pending and while they are being evaluated by
ARIN staff.  Instead, it seems to me, we are talking about both assignments
and transfers that were in fact made, and that thus should have been duly
recorded in the public ledger that we call the ARIN WHOIS data base.

Have I misunderstood?

If not, and if there is already public information that is available to
anyone who simply compares successive historical editions editions of
the WHOIS data base to one another, looking only at the changes, and if
that change information, over time, points to the identities of the
specific entities that have obtained and the transfered the allocations in
question, in the suspicious manner described, then you have no compelling
reason, either legal, moral, or ethical to withold those identities from
the community.  And you should not do so.  Both individuals and corporate
entities need to be held accountable for their public actions.  It is
precisely the widspread _lack_ of such accountability that leads, always
and inevitably, to even more audacious frauds in the future.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.  And frankly, I don't know why such
a simple and obvious concept should require such a hard sell on my part
to get across.

Maybe we can cut to the chase here and just take a simple poll.

Everyone on this list who really wants John to protect the identities of
the guilty in this case please raise your hands now.


Regards,
rfg