[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Sat Jun 25 17:48:49 EDT 2022


On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 4:52 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
<rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> Are these attestations signed "under penality of perjury"?

Hi Ronald,

No. Only things the law specifically authorizes to be signed under
penalty of perjury can be signed under penalty of perjury. The best
known example is DMCA complaints explicitly authorized under 17 USC
512(C)(3)(A)(vi) where a takedown notice is not considered issued
unless the sender swears under penalty of perjury that they're
authorized to represent the owner of the copyright.

Criminal perjury charges can't generally be brought against someone
unless they lie in a situation recognized as being "under oath." It's
not supposed to be a tool used in civil contracts.

Generally speaking, lying in representations involving a contract can
be fraud, not perjury. No specific formula is required for it to be
fraud. The officer attestation, however, means that if it's a lie the
signatory is presumed to have known so and can't just claim that some
rogue employee did it.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list