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

Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Wed Feb 27 01:33:45 EST 2019

In message <B41DBCEA-276F-4E5A-8B7D-68CFF4B943CA at arin.net>, 
John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>If you wish complete transparency regarding fraudulent requests, that can
>be accommodated, but first requires the community to come to consensus that
>requests for number resource activities (issuance/transfers/updates) should
>be made publicly.   To my knowledge, there has been no proposal or
>discussion of this stance within the ARIN community.

Well, I don't seriously expect this to actually go anywhere, and I don't
know -any- of the proper formalities or mechanics of how to do this, but
yes, I would like to put forward a proposal, at this time, that all number
resource activities (issuance/transfers/updates) should be made a matter
of public record at the time of their occurrence.... if they are not so

In fact, I will go a bit farther and say that I'm more than a little bit
surprised to hear the suggestion that this is not already the case.  Isn't
the ARIN WHOIS data base already accurately and publicly documenting any
and all issuance/transfers/updates at the time of their occurrence?

Color me puzzled.

>The question before the community is _not_ whether you believe that
>significant fraud is occurring and whether the issuance per the waiting
>list policy should be suspended - that actually has already occurred
>after review & due consideration by the ARIN Board of Trustees.   The
>question now before the community is whether there is a some waiting list
>issuance policy that will fulfill the desired purpose without encouraging
>similar gamesmanship. 

That is -a- question before the community.  And it's a damned good one.
But it's not the only one.

I, for one would still like to know more, much more, about the extent of
this "gaming" problem, and specifically about who has been undertaking
these clever exploitations, which are clearly at odds, both with the intent
of existing policy, and also with the best interests of the community.

Mostly I want to know because I'd like the opportunity to look and see
what ELSE those same folks may have gotten up to.

I see no downside to getting the facts out on the table, and then allowing
the chips to fall where they may.  None of these alleged suspect actions
or activities were carried out either in back rooms or in dark alleys.
Rather, they were undertaken on the public Internet for all to see.  How
then, John, can you now claim that they are subject to some sort of non-
existant and never-before-seen kind of confidentiality privilege?

It seems to me that you are creating this new secrecy privlege (for
issuances, transfers, and updates) purely by executive fiat, just at this
moment, and only to cover this specific set of curcumstances and/or this
specific set of less than admirable actors.

As Kevin Blumberg pointed out, we could all go trawling through the current
and historical WHOIS records and maybe figure out on our own what's really
going on and who the parties involved are, but I would save us all quite
a lot of time and bother if you just posted the info John.   You obviously
do have all of the info at your fingertips, and the ARIN WHOIS database is,
thank god, not yet considered as a confidential document to be perused only
by an elite clergy.... although I feel sure that that is the direction that
things are heading in.

In short, this is NOT a private matter.  All of the suspect issuances,
transfers and updates, were, I trust, properly recorded in the public
WHOIS data base.  It is therefore rather disingenuous of you to suggest,
at this late date, that any of the pertinent facts either can be or
should be held as a state secret, OR that some sort of a new policy
proposal must be put forward, drafted, re-drafted, and then debated
ad nauseum in order for us commoners and lay people to simply learn the
facts that you clearly already know, and that, if ARIN has been doing its
job, have already been well and truly publicized in the various historical
editions of the WHOIS data base.

I do well and truly understand, John, the various reasons why you would
not be at all anxious to be airing the dirty laundry, but I, for one,
have never been a believer in half measures or equivocation.  Either the
WHOIS data base is a matter of public record or it isn't.  As Lincoln
once famously said "It will become all one thing, or all the other".

I'm quite completely sure that many would wish that the ARIN WHOIS data
base were now and would forever after be a secret document known only to
a select and privleged few, but if it is your goal or intent to move
things in that direction, then I respectfully ask that you plese do get
on with it, and let's finally have no more of these shallow pretenses that
the things that ARIN and and its members do are either entirely above board
-or- subject to anything resembling open public scrutiny.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list