[arin-ppml] Reclamation of Number Resources

Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Fri Jul 15 00:56:23 EDT 2022

In message <CAP-guGXjO8s9bDWRJrWR2_gk78pcHiX0A6v_P8g+dRH7qh8kfQ at mail.gmail.com>
William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

>Then don't call it fraud. Call it "use potentially inconsistent with
>ARIN policy." Let ARIN determine whether it's fraud.

See my prior post in relation to this point.  I will be happy to file any
kind of report that ARIN may desire so long as the reporting system and
associated form(s) do NOT mention the word "fraud", because that word may
boomerang back and hurt *me* if I report a member for "fraud" that is not
guilty of fraud.

>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.

Not even a terse summary!  Both the public even the person who filed the
report initially get absolutely -nothing- back from ARIN.  Not even a
"yea" or "nay" at the end of the investigation.  Zip.  Nada.  Nothing.

If that's not the very definition of "stonewalling" and/or "protecting the
guilty" then I don't know what is.

But I guess that ARIN feels it has the right, even if not the obligation, to
make a blanket claim of "executive privilege" over anything and everything.

This may please some.  It most certainly does not please me.  And there is
*no* rational basis for it, other than an abject and unfounded terror of
being sued by some fraudster, like Mr. Micfo, if ARIN ever says anything
unflattering about them.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list