[arin-ppml] Reclamation of Number Resources
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Sat Jul 16 02:48:28 EDT 2022
In message <CAP-guGW00VMg53RqnQQ0fL9SBWbNmYi_bnWHu=Wqoq0_vC_ryA at mail.gmail.com>
William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 12:28 PM Matthew Petach <mpetach at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Justice must always be a "black box", to protect the innocent,
>> until guilt is sufficiently demonstrated to warrant public action.
>> Otherwise, lives and reputations are destroyed on nothing
>> more than empty allegations from the aggrieved. :(
>You understand that's not how jurisprudence generally works, right?
>Court cases and filings are almost always open to the public.
Bill, we must be cognizant of, and sensitive to the fact that we here in the
U.S. are somewhat spoiled when it comes to the transparency of our judicial
processes, and in particular of our criminal judicial processes.
In Europe, as I understand it (and largely but not entirely due to GDPR)
they take a rather dramatically different approach, and keep everything
under wraps, even *after* some slimebag has been duly and fairly convicted
of multiple heinous, bloodthirsty, and premeditated murders. Even such
individuals have an immediate right to be instantly "forgotten", under the
law as it exists in much of Europe. (This affords untold millions of
European citizens the absolute right to live next door to unidentified
serial rapists and/or murderers while remaining totally oblivious to
the sinister malevolence in their own neighborhoods, which is apparenly
Returning however to the question of ARIN and its adjudication of incoming
reports of, shall we just say "fishy fact patterns", for me at least it is
both reasonable and acceptable that ARIN should be allowed to investigate
such matters -without- any uninvolved parties looking over their shoulders
as they do so. Where I part company with John Curran is when we come to
the question of what ARIN can or should reveal -after- ARIN has completed
its internal reviews.
As I have stated, it is my belief that both ARIN members and the Internet
using public at large would be best served if ARIN would simply give a
thumbs up / thumbs down at the end of any such review it performs. It can
phrase these concluding pronouncements in the manner I have suggested,
i.e. by simply saying that ARIN either will reclaim resources (and/or
terminate a membership) or that it declines to do so at the present time.
(It need not explain or elaborate in any way on any such decision.)
I believe that ARIN can and should do this within one calendar month of its
reciept of the original "fishiness" report.
This, it seems to me, is neither difficult nor unreasonable. It would provide
at least some transparency to an internal ARIN process which is at the moment
quite entirely opaque, and for me at least, that would represent real progress.
More information about the ARIN-PPML