[arin-ppml] Reclamation of Number Resources

Matthew Petach mpetach at netflight.com
Thu Jul 14 17:17:54 EDT 2022

On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 1:14 PM William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 12:59 PM Matthew Petach <mpetach at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 12:47, William Herrin
> > <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > You understand that's not how jurisprudence generally works, right?
> > Court cases and filings are almost always open to the public.
> >
> > But we don't proceed to bring cases to court until enough evidence has
> been gathered to satisfy a reasonable cause for doing so, and we have
> penalties for lawyers who attempt to bring frivolous cases to court.
> What have you got to hide? ;)


I'm sure we've all learned from Eric Schmidt's faux pas with respect to
that notion.   ^_^;

> Seriously though, we file civil cases on reasonable, good faith belief
> and make arrests on probable cause, all of it publicly reported. There
> is a bar but it's not a high bar nor should it be. And we don't
> generally penalize lawyers unless they act in actual bad faith.

But the bar for probable cause is considerably higher than
"But Ronald couldn't find proof they were following the law"

Note that if there's actual indications of wrongdoing, we already
have a means to file a complaint with ARIN, as John has repeatedly
pointed out.

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.

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
of innocence rather than acting on accusation of guilt with evidence to
up the assertion.

Just as it is not the job of the police to check on what each and every one
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

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
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.  :(



> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20220714/7fd1d07c/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list