Hi Tom,

I agree with your point that the transfer market has been an excellent vehicle 
for moving space around the ARIN community. If people want to lose 15% of their 
money to a broker vs. finding a buyer themselves, that is up to them. I don’t 
think this constitutes bad behavior to any parties involved and I am definitely 
for brokerage services operating in the space.

> Furthermore, even within the waiting list, the problem appears with only a 
> small percentage of recipients (25 re-transfers out of 682 total), although 
> this does impact a high percentage of the waiting list block space since the 
> abusers are almost entirely doing this with larger blocks.


> Yes, it’s possible there is abuse with the small blocks off the waiting list 
> as well, but so far we aren’t seeing it (only 3% of smaller blocks have been 
> re-transferred vs. 42% of the larger blocks).  Now, perhaps if we restrict 
> the waiting list block size to a /22 these bad actors will start playing the 
> same game with /22s, but we don’t have any evidence that will occur.


As I have mentioned on at least 2 occasions in the past few days; the 
re-transfers statistics are not an indication of the actual scale of the fraud 
problem we have here in the community. It is in ARIN’s policies that 
re-transfers are under careful supervision, and I’m sure any smart criminal 
wouldn’t think to transfer it out immediately but rather sub-lease the space in 
the meantime. Why are you clinging to the re-transfer stats and not 
acknowledging the basic misalignment of incentives with the current system?

Best Regards,

Robert Clarke
CubeMotion LLC
[email protected]
M: +1 (844) 244-8140 ex. 512
300 Lenora Street #454, Seattle, WA, 98121

> On Mar 1, 2019, at 10:26 AM, Tom Fantacone <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> At 06:35 PM 2/28/2019, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM ARIN <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > A significant percentage of organizations that receive blocks
>> > from the waiting list subsequently issue these blocks to other
>> > organizations via 8.3 or 8.4 transfers shortly after the one year
>> > waiting period required before engaging in such outbound transfers.
>> 
>> I'm shocked to learn that people are playing arbitrage with the
>> transfer process. Oh wait, no I'm not. I may have even expressed my
>> expectation that we'd see this sort of behavior back when we debated
>> the transfer policies. If I had the time, I might dig out my old
>> emails just so I could say I told you so.
> 
> While we have a problem with the waiting list that we’re trying to address 
> here, I think it's important to point out that the transfer market as a whole 
> has proven an excellent vehicle for moving number resources from those who no 
> longer need them to those who do.  This “gaming of the system” is restricted 
> to a subset of the waiting list, and the number of blocks issued on the 
> waiting list is less than 10% of the blocks transferred in the ARIN region 
> during the same time period.  (682 blocks have been issued via the waiting 
> list, and a quick look at ARIN’s transfer stats indicates roughly 8,000 
> blocks transferred in the same time frame since 2015 if I’m reading it 
> correctly).  If we look at the ratio in terms of total address space, I 
> suspect the waiting list comprises an even smaller percentage, though I can’t 
> readily find those figures.
> 
> Furthermore, even within the waiting list, the problem appears with only a 
> small percentage of recipients (25 re-transfers out of 682 total), although 
> this does impact a high percentage of the waiting list block space since the 
> abusers are almost entirely doing this with larger blocks.
> 
> The point is that while “The problem statement is pretty damning
> ” (quoting Kevin Blumberg), the sky is not falling due to the transfer 
> markets.  It’s damning within the small subset of re-transfers of blocks 
> received off the waiting list.
> 
>> > the organization will be provided the option to be placed on
>> > a waiting list of pre-qualified recipients, listing both the block size
>> > qualified for or a /22, whichever is smaller, and the smallest block
>> > size acceptable, not to exceed a /22.
>> 
>> I fail to see how this solves the problem. For $20k a pop, I can clear
>> a tidy profit on a year, a shell company and some paperwork. Sure I'd
>> rather get $200k a pop but the change doesn't make the effort
>> unattractive. I really just need to create more shell companies.
>> 
>> This approach is reactive. Oh, the fraud is mostly on the big blocks
>> so stop that. Oh, now the fraud is on the smaller blocks, what do we
>> do? Don't react. Get ahead of the problem. That's what you do.
> 
> Yes, it’s possible there is abuse with the small blocks off the waiting list 
> as well, but so far we aren’t seeing it (only 3% of smaller blocks have been 
> re-transferred vs. 42% of the larger blocks).  Now, perhaps if we restrict 
> the waiting list block size to a /22 these bad actors will start playing the 
> same game with /22s, but we don’t have any evidence that will occur.
> 
> Others have pointed out issues of abuse in RIPE where LIRs are spun up to 
> grab /22s from the final /8, but the 2 environments are different.  First, 
> there is no justification requirement in RIPE.  Form a corp, have a presence 
> in the RIPE region, and you get a /22 whether you can justify it or not.  
> That may not exactly be a noble action in support of the spirit of the RIPE 
> community, but for the most part, it is policy-compliant.  In ARIN, you have 
> to justify your need and sign an affidavit affirming your justification which 
> makes willful misrepresentation fraudulent.   That’s a much higher 
> disincentive to go through for a /22 than in RIPE, where basically it’s just 
> frowned upon.  And per John Curran’s remarks, ARIN has revoked address space 
> when investigating why some of these actors are selling their waiting list 
> space shortly after receiving it.  So these gamers could risk an audit of 
> their full address holdings in order to con ARIN out of a /22.  The “abuse” 
> in RIPE regarding the final /8 is also heavily concentrated in a few member 
> nations and, suffice it to say, those same nations are not ARIN members.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tom
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.

Reply via email to