Message: 1 Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 15:34:22 -0700 From: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> To: David Huberman <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 106, Issue 8 Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I find this very interesting considering that both Stephen and I wrote NRPM 12 as an effort to prevent ARIN from over-reaching on enforcement and to provide reassurance to the community that ARIN was focused on providing appropriate protections of community resources and not merely bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. I do not believe that the existing provisions in NRPM 4 or NRPM 6 for the prevention of fraud and/or gaming of the system are unnecessary or obviated by what is contained in section 12. Indeed, in order to function at all, section 12 depends on those policies to provide guidance as to how and when the enforcement mechanisms defined in section 12 are to be used. Owen On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:57 AM, David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote: In my message you are replying to, I accidentally forgot to address the hijacking issue. (Last message from me on list today, I promise!) I think Owen DeLong and Stephen Sprunk did a really good job addressing the whole hijacking and scamming problem when they authored NRPM section 12. Between ARIN's legal protections in the RSA and as a business incorporated in, and operating in, the United States, and the policy levers that NRPM 12 give, I think that whole issue is well covered by policy. In general, I do not agree with section 4, 6, or 6 policy that tries to account for scammers. We should make policy for the 99%, not the 1%. Let ARIN as a business, and ARIN as an enforcer of NRPM 12, deal with that -- and report back to us any deficiencies in tools. *Hi Guys, * *I have noticed a fraud application and had reported tkt [ARIN-20140107-F1419] to ARIN long time ago. What i can have from ARIN when i am asking an update is that it is still under the investigation or rely something meaning nothing. * *I agree with both of your guys opinions here( refer to NRPM 12). However, when a the fraud happens, ARIN should work as the enforcer to reclaim the IPv4 back. as i have already provided enough evidences to approve the fraud behaviour without receiving any solid reply from ARIN. I will have to choose to disclose all the evidences to the community in basis of which the following conditions come first.* *Condition 1: ARIN run out of its free pool or ARIN keeps allocating another /15 to this Fraud.* *Condition 2: Wait for another 3months. Then totally ARIN has 6 months to finalise the Fraud investigation. maybe as a bureau organisation 6-month is too short for ARIN to finalise a Fraud investigation?* *Niki*
_______________________________________________ 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.
