[arin-ppml] Reclamation of Number Resources

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <1452393337.896930.1657826873601 at mail.yahoo.com>, 
Matthew Petach <mpetach at yahoo.com> wrote:

>  On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 10:36, William Herrin<bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>  On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 10:27 AM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> Of more concern to me is the lack of transparency in ARIN
>> investigations of fraud. I realize there's a delicate line to walk
>> here between public transparency, non-disclosure of private
>> information and defamation but it doesn't feel like we're at the right
>> balance. The whole thing happens behind closed doors. Unless it ends
>> up in court, all the public gets is a terse summary.
>
>Let me rephrase for clarity:
>
>"all the public gets is a" summary too terse to evaluate ARIN's
>enforcement of number policy.
>
>And how could it be anything but, unless actual guilt is proven, while still
>being consistent with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty?"

I think that "guilt" is not really the appropriate word to be using, at least
not in the context of the case that I have recently presented here.

Somebody messed up.  That is my conclusion.  It may have been ARIN staff.
It may have been the member.  If it was the member, then the error may
perhaps have simply been attributable to a failure, on the part of the
member, to adequately understand ARIN policies.  (Of course it may have
been deliberate and provable fraud, with malice aforethought on the part
of the member, but we can burn that bridge when we get to it.)

Generosity of spirit requires us to admit that as humans we have all made
mistakes.  And for most of us humans our mistakes do not amount to a
deliberate criminal enterprise.  Thus, although I personally prefer
maximum harshness of judgement when it comes to the enforcement of
ARIN policies, I am altogether less eager to see anyone publicly
denounced as a criminal for what may have been just some set of
screw ups.

>you disclose the nature of an investigation while guilt is still being
>appraised?

I don't think that anyone would want that.  I certainly wouldn't.  It
would however be most helpful, from my perspective anyway, if ARIN would
be entirely more forthcoming about the results of their investigations,
when and as they are completed.

If a party has some funny-looking routing or WHOIS records, but is otherwise
behaving entirely in accordance with both the law and ARIN policy, then it
certainly would do no harm to that member for ARIN to publicly absolve
that member of any and all misdeeds and/or misbehavior.  Conversely,
if a given member has violated either the law or ARIN policy, and if
ARIN has been able to establish that, based upon a careful review, then
I would argue that it would be in the best interests of both ARIN members
and Internet users everywhere for ARIN to share that determination with
the community at the earliest possible moment.  And even in those rare
cases where ARIN finds itself compelled to refer some matter to law
enforcement, in the absence of an explict court-issued gag order ARIN
is under no obligation to anyone to keep silent if it has determined to
its own satisfaction that it is more likely than not that laws have been
broken.

But I personally have not even asked for even that level of transparency
on ARIN's part!  Rather, I would be altogether satisfied if, within one
calendar month of being notified of any, shall we just say "suspicious
facts" that may implicate either law or ARIN policy, ARIN would state
publicly one of the following two things:

     *)  ARIN has reviewed this report and ARIN declines to take any
         action with respect to this matter at the present time.

     *)  ARIN has reviewed this report and ARIN has elected to reclaim
         some or all of the relevant assigned number resources, and it
         shall do so by <<DATE CERTAIN>>.

Note that ARIN need never make any kind of public pronouncement which might
even conceivably place it into any kind of legal jeopardy.  It can simply
state that it has elected to reclaim resources... which it might do for
any number of different reasons... and leave it at that.  The public would
then be free to draw its own conclusions.

I can ask for no more, and I do ask for no less.


Regards,
rfg