> On May 14, 2019, at 5:01 PM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 3:58 PM John Curran <[email protected]> wrote:
> > You ask: "Was that ever in doubt?" Not by me, but from time to time we’ve
> > had folks raise questions about the legal enforceability of the RSA.
> >
> > The precedent set is that the terms and conditions fo the RSA were
> > effectively enforced by the arbitrator’s decision, including two specific
> > basis for revocation: 1) RSA’s entered fraudulently may be considered as
> > void (and resources revoked), and 2) in the alternative, to the extent that
> > we consider the RSA a valid contract, then the fraudulent conduct is a
> > breach the RSA (also permitting revocation.)
>
>
> Hmm. That seems helpful.
>
> I'm less enthusiastic about another precedent that may have been set here -
> that the scammer won't be required to make the community whole on the
> resources that have already passed through his hands by the time the fraud is
> halted. Unless that question is not yet settled?
Carefully parsing John’s statements, it appears that question will not be
settled until the outcome of criminal proceedings is known, at which time ARIN
will have the authority to revoke further address space if it can be shown that
criminal activity put the scammer in breach of the RSA on any space he acquired
directly and not through fraudulent representations.
Let’s withhold judgement on what the scammer may have “gotten away with” until
the wheels of justice have finished grinding.
Scott
_______________________________________________
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.
