[arin-ppml] Reclamation of Number Resources

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <DD281881-D982-453E-B811-8934A103EC0E at arin.net>, 
John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>Of course, you are correct that this misses the real meat of the issue - the
>current review process is opaque except in cases where the issuance was
>determined to be in error (in which case the problem is corrected and a brief
>summary to that effect is provided.)   It certainly doesn't provide a detailed
>public justification of the properness of the issuance per the ARIN's staff
>implementation of applicable number resource policy against the supplied
>information from the requester, and it is unclear if such could ever be
>provided. 

Wait!  Wait!  I suppose that we can quibble about the meaning of the word
"detailed" in this context, but other than that, I think that you, John,
_have_ just proven that, in this case at least, ARIN had no problem
explaining (a) what had happaned, and also (b) why the grant of membership
was entirely within policy at the time it ocurred.  You did so succinctly,
and quite obviously without any need to resort to any kind of disclosure,
improper or otherwise, of any information that could be construed as being
this member's trade secrets or confidential business information.

So when you say (paraphrasing) "It is unclear if ARIN could ever provide a
public justification of the properness of the issuance..." of either a
membership or a number resource... well... you've just proven that it *is*
possible, at least in this one rather specific instance, yes?

Maybe it could be possible in other instances also (?)

>As I noted earlier, we rather frequently receive reports that allege improper
>issuance only to find out that that they stem from insufficient understanding
>of the applicable Internet number resource policy on the part of the submitter.

Yes.  And in all of those cases it should never be necessary for ARIN to give
out anybody's confidential information, right?  Because you can just do
exactly what you have done in this case, i.e. helpfully explain to the party
that raised the issue/question why they simply have, as you put it, an
"insufficient understanding of the applicable Internet number resource policy".
And wouldn't that be the most helpful, friendly, and polite thing to do in
all such cases?

I suppose that you are correct, John, that in this case the error was all mine
in having failed to understand and appreciate that even as recently as 2016 the
ARIN membership did not take seriously the possibility of interlopers from
outside the region coming into the region to grab whatever was left of ARIN's
already dwindling resources.  And thus, for my mistake I will say "Mea cupla!",
fall on my sword, and do whatever other groveling may be appropriate in this
circumstance.

But having done all that, I am compelled to come back to the question of how
ARIN responds to inquiries such as this, and to assert my belief that having
ARIN just tell the reporter "ARIN never makes mistakes, so you must have" is
a sub-optimal way to respond to these things.  And after all, how much did it
cost you/ARIN to educate me, with respect to this case, that policy was just
simply different back in 2012?  And am I not now a better netizen for having
been educated, by you, on this point?

>Such is the case with the particular request Ronald noted - despite not
>receiving any report, for avoidance of doubt we did complete an internal review
>the request & supporting information and indeed it was issued correctly per the
>applicable number resource policy at the time of the request.   I understand
>that answer is unlikely to satisfy some without a public dissection of the
>entire process, but that cannot occur without ARIN violating the confidential
>nature of requests for Internet number resources. 

It actually *is* entirely satisfying to *me*, and I certainly have not and
will not be requesting any information relating to this member, or to this
member's assigned resources, at least none that any reasonable person might
consider to be "confidential".  But I am hoping that you will be so kind as
to point me to the place where I may myself review the NRPM as it existed
back in 2012.  That, I'm sure, is all that is needed in order to set my mind
entirely at ease that all was done by the book in this case.

(I can only speak for myself, but *I* certain have never been so presumptious
as to demand that ARIN reveal to me any of the details of any of its internal
processes, so that is kind of a red herring in this context.)

Separate from all of the foregoing, I have already expressed here my firm
and unshakable belief that ARIN should never be shy to disclose the identities
and contact information for any and all natural persons who have formally
requested either ARIN memberships or ARIN resources, and I have vigorously
stated my rationale for that belief.

I would certainly like to know what person(s) signed on the dotted line
when this membership was requested, back in 2012, and I see no basis for
ARIN to fail to publish that information.  But to be crystal clear, I am
*not* just interested to know only the names behind the one membership
designated by the handle SL-206, interesting as it may be, but rather,
as I have tried to make clear, I'd like to know the names of the persons
behind _all_ ARIN memberships, past, present, and future.

And who could possibly be opposed to that kind of reasonable public disclosure
other than, you  know, criminals?


Regards,
rfg