[arin-ppml] Reclamation of Number Resources

[Owen DeLong]

> What Ronald is doing is accusing ARIN of *not* going after people 
> he suspects aren't following the law, without submitting any actual 
> evidence to support the accusation. 

No, Ronald is pointing out that ARIN doesn’t have a mechanism to encourage ARIN to investigate whether or not ARIN missed something or made an incorrect assumption in processing an application other than by accusing the applicant of fraud. Ronald isn’t willing to accuse the applicant as he doesn’t have evidence of fraud. He is, instead, suggesting that he believes ARIN staff erred in issuing the resources and attempting through means other than accusing the applicant of fraud (note: fraud is a crime of intent, it requires an intent to deceive as well as a gain from the deception, mere ignorance isn’t sufficient).

I think Ronald has provided enough evidence for ARIN to investigate its own behavior here, which is what Ronald has requested.

I agree that we shouldn’t be conducting a witch hunt against the applicant unless there is some evidence that the applicant deliberately defrauded ARIN in their application process.

Ronald has clearly stated he has no such evidence or belief and that he believes simply that ARIN erred. I do think it is not unreasonable for ARIN to investigate and determine whether it erred or not.

Owen

> 
> This is McCarthyism resurrected.
> 
> " “I have here in my hand a list of 205 [State Department employees] that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department.”
> 
> We should not stoop to witch hunt allegations without any supporting 
> evidence being offered.  Ronald indicated he couldn't find evidence of 
> fraud, and thus wasn't willing to file a fraud report.  He simply said he 
> couldn't find evidence that the accused networks and individuals *weren't*
> committing fraud, and that it was up to ARIN to demonstrate they weren't 
> complicit in covering up for the entity.  In essence, he's demanding that 
> ARIN show the world how they go about determining that every company 
> that has ever applied for number resources is *not guilty* of fraud. 
> 
> We should *never* put the burden of proving innocence on the victim. 
> 
> The burden of proof of guilt should be on the accuser's side to produce. 
> 
> When accusations of fraud are submitted, yes, it's worthy and reasonable 
> for ARIN to report on the outcome.
> 
> But for Ronald to demand that ARIN reveal the details of how ARIN went 
> about deciding that every company that ever applied for number resources 
> was *NOT* breaking the law is a witch hunt.  It is a demand to produce proof 
> of innocence rather than acting on accusation of guilt with evidence to back 
> up the assertion.
> 
> Just as it is not the job of the police to check on what each and every one of 
> us is doing in our households to make sure we're innocent of all crime, it is not 
> ARIN's job to ensure every company that ever applied for number resources 
> is completely innocent of all crime.  If there is an accusation of fraud, they should 
> act on it and investigate it thoroughly.  But absent that, if no evidence of fraudulent 
> behaviour is reported, it should not be incumbent on ARIN staff to justify why they 
> have not taken action against every company that ever submitted a request to 
> them.
> 
> I for one do not wish to turn the ARIN region into that level of totalitarian regime.
> 
> When Ronald finds evidence of fraud, he should report it, and ARIN should 
> investigate it, and report accordingly if fraud is found. 
> 
> But to fire broad-based accusations against the ARIN membership and against 
> ARIN staff without proof is a bridge too far:
> 
> "  *)  How many more memberships are currently sitting on ARIN's books that,
>       as in this case, obviously should never have been there, and what
>       effort, if any, will ARIN now expend to find them and to terminate
>       the memberships involved?"
> 
> If it's obvious (ie, there is proof of fraud), then why is Ronald unwilling to 
> file a complaint against the networks in question?
> 
> He himself admits he can find no evidence of fraud:
> 
> "I cannot, in all honesty and good conscience, report something as
>       "fraud" where the set of pertinent facts, as I have elaborated them,
>       *do not* suggest that there has been any fraud, deceit, or
>       misrepresentation of any kind, at least not on the part of the member
>       organization in question."
> 
> So, he cannot accuse the specific network in question of committing 
> fraud, for there is proof.
> 
> But he is willing to accuse ARIN staff of not finding the very proof he 
> himself has been unable to find.
> 
> If there is clear evidence of fraud that ARIN is overlooking, and that 
> evidence can be produced, I might have some sympathy for what Ronald 
> is demanding. 
> 
> But to simply claim that ARIN staff are incompentent at finding evidence 
> of fraud when Ronald himself cannot find such evidence is unconscionable,
> and I would hope Ronald would have the decency to either produce evidence 
> to support his claim, or retract it with an apology.  
> 
> It is every bit as unreasonable a demand as if I were to demand that Ronald 
> produce *proof* he has stopped beating his wife, to use the age-old example.  :(
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Matt
> 
>  
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20220715/873bd80f/attachment.htm>