44/8

Mon Jul 22 17:16:55 UTC 2019

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good
> > reasons and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse,
> > it looks like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then
> > supporting the folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own
> >rather than integrating with the organizations that existed.
>
> As you are aware, there are individuals and businesses who operate as
>a “Doing Business As/DBA" or on behalf on an unincorporated organization
>at the time of issuance; it is a more common occurrence than one might
imagine,
>and we have to deal with the early registrations appropriately based on the
>particular circumstance.   ARIN promptly put processes in place so that
such
>registrations, having been made on behalf of a particular purpose or
organization,
>do not get misappropriated to become rights solely of the point of contact
held for
>personal gain – indeed, there are cases where organizations are created
with
>similar names for the purposes of hijacking number resources, but such
cases
>don’t generally involve principles who were involved in the administration
of the
>resources since issuance nor do they involve formalization of the
registrant into
>a public benefit not-for-profit organization.

Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name
field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated
to a _purpose_. You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable
resource to be reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and then treated
the organization as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that.
Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach
organizations to the purpose-based allocations and certainly nothing
demanded that you grant such organizations identical control over the
resources as the control possessed by folks who were the intended direct
recipients of assignments.

I guess you thought that would avoid having ARIN make judgement calls each
time about whether the registrant for a purpose-based allocation was acting
in the best interest of the purpose? It doesn't. It just makes ARIN look
like a party to fraud.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20190722/ced602b0/attachment.html>