On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Milton L Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message-----
[ clip ] >> Anyone care to address the points, from a technical perspective, that >> the LEO community raised as well? > > You mean LEAs (law enforcement agencies)? Did you read the comments? Those > concerns were addressed: > > "The requirement to have a minimal level of resources deployed in the region > (/44 for IPv6, /22 for IPv4, 1 ASN) is an attempt to respond to law > enforcement and some community concerns. An absolute threshold ensures that > those applying for ARIN resources are actually operating in the region and > not simply a shell company, but it avoids the known pitfalls of trying to use > percentages of the organization's overall holdings to do that." > To be clear, my past opposition to most LEA oriented suggestions has been around policy not requiring due process. We're now talking about a break down in the effectiveness of due process. Not quite the same thing. ARINs subscriber data is the problem, not policy. This proposal does nothing to resolve that or put up sufficient barriers to fraudsters. It hurts legitimate networks more. If you disagree, I'd like to hear more about how you believe that it does address the issue. I'm open to be convinced otherwise. -opposed Best, -M< _______________________________________________ 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.
