On Wed, 12 Jun 2013, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Brandon Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
How is this a problem unique to the non-needs based, small transfer
proposal? Doesn't this exact problem still exist when you do a needs
assessment?
Nope. With a needs assessment in place, we have no cause to care what
scope the organization uses to define itself. Only activity within
that scope can be used to justify need. Reporting the same instance of
need under multiple organizations is fraud.
Please explain how it is not fraud to create a bunch of shell companies
under your control to accept multiple transfers of IPv4 space to exceed
the /12 (or whatever size) cap, especially if, as has been suggested by
others, there must be an attestation to this fact by management of the
entity?
It seems to me that weather you use shell companies to make it look like
you comply with a needs assessment or if you use them to avoid a cap,
either way it's fraud and either way ARIN would have (or not have) the
same tools to detect that behavior.
If the shell's use is justified in and of itself, what difference does
it make that the shell holds the addresses instead of the parent?
None. Did I argue that somewhere?
--
Brandon Ross Yahoo & AIM: BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667 ICQ: 2269442
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/bross Skype: brandonross
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
