[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5
tom at iptrading.com
Mon Jun 27 06:57:04 EDT 2022
I don't believe either form (Acknowledgement or Attestation) are currently optional. Only the Acknowledgement form needs to be notarized, however.
---- On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 17:58:21 -0400 Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote ---
Please find my comments below, inline...
Le samedi 25 juin 2022, Tom Fantacone <mailto:tom at iptrading.com> a écrit :
This is actually the link for the sample Officer Attestation:
Thanks for adding more clarifications, brother :-)
The link you provided was for the "Officer Acknowledgement".
The Officer Acknowledgement is a notarized form
Here, you seem to have kickly generalised an
optional act :-/
It's not what the documented  procedure states:
"*No notarization is necessary*. Note that the form
will be provided to you and is not available via our
signed by the Seller of the resources verifying, among other things, that the signer is authorized on behalf of the source entity to make the resource transfer.
...it would be really useful to render this attestation
mandatory, imho; as it appears to be optional .
That helps to avoid a situation where an unauthorized employee with ARIN online access could make a resource transfer without permission.
Thanks for mentioning this valuable detail.
FWIW, the tool is available; but it's still  optional :'-(
The Officer Acknowledgment form , *when signed*
*and notarized*, *is required to be provided* to
ARIN *by a source organization* (current registrant)
for a Transfer to Specified Recipients in the ARIN
Region (8.3) or an Inter-RIR Transfer (8.4). An
officer of the source organization needs to sign this
form, have it notarized, and provide it to ARIN."
Would you like it to become mandatory?
The Officer Attestation is a simpler form signed by the Buyer attesting to the accuracy of the justification data and doesn't require notarization.
Tom, could you, please, explain why?
...imho! the new resource holder *must* be an org
which is willing to demonstrate its *need* of INRs.
That's the one the draft policy seeks to eliminate.
This is a new information, at least for me, and i
thank you for this useful clarification, brother.
...i see it, at least, become optionally validated.
As you explained; the interest in validating the
Officer Acknowledgement document, is to add
more confidence to the process, for the new
Why not also validate Officer Acknowledgement
If the new resource holder's right representative
could sign a notarized document, then the new
destination of those INRs, being transfered, might
be more safe, and the numbering community
would celebrate that happy end...imho :-/
Rather than supporting this attempt to prevent the
use of Officer Attestation documents, i recommend
that its validation becomes the norm & its non
validation an exception. This would add more
protection against INRs reservation, imho.
Thanks to let me know if i misunderstood something...
This is where, i have to call John again...or anyone,
with clue, from ARIN's Staff...for help :-)
---- On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 00:41:46 -0400 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote ---
Best Regards !
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>
Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/>
#LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec vous tous! #Amen!»
#MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML