John, this is a pretty lame response, I think you have substituted length for accuracy here in order to make it appear as if you have more of an argument than you do. But in reality you are just repeating, over and over again, the speculation that monetary gain would become a decisive factor with judges.
See responses in line. Consider that revocation in a matter of fraud & revocation, such as was recently performed and documented here - <https://teamarin.net/2019/05/13/taking-a-hard-line-on-fraud/> MM: Are you forgetting that the REASON this fraud occurred was because you were handing out reclaimed addresses for free on the wait list? In such a situation, our revocation is compliant with terms of service in the registration services agreement, with a successful result facilitating recovery of resources fraudulently obtained and their reissurance to the community. MM: Under the proposed policy, all revocations would also be compliant with terms of service, would they not? Or are you saying that ARIN staff, including yourself, would suddenly invent reasons to revoke resources in order to sell them? Hey, I have more confidence in you and the ARIN staff than that. there is no significant financial benefit to ARIN. If instead ARIN were revoking the resources with the intent of monetizing them MM: Whoa. Where in the proposed policy does it say that ARIN revokes resources in order to monetize them? It doesn’t, there is no such intent. ARIN would revoke resources for the same reasons and using the same criteria as it does now. Auctioning them off post hoc is just the best way to kill incentives to game the wait list and the fairest and most efficient way to know who to give them to. I am not a lawyer, but can say from firsthand experience that ARIN’s present stance as administrator and steward of the registry makes dealing with many disputes rather straightforward, and if we were a party of significant financial interest in the outcomes, then there are various legal options for enforcement that would become quite challenging or altogether unavaialble, and thus require us to go further down the litigation/arbitration to obtain the appropriate outcomes for the community. This is not a “highly speculative” outcome of monetization, but rather inevitable outcome as judges reasonable view MM: This is pure speculation. You do not have a single fact or a single case to back it up. With enough effort, we’re likely to achieve the same outcome in the end, but it is readily apparent to be that becoming a party with a strong financial incentive in this manner will raise the cost and uncertainty of our legal proceedings. MM: And this conclusion is based on what facts? If ARIN’s policies directed that we would monetize the recovered resources (even if then using the proceeds for the benefit of the community), I am confident that we would be still be in litigation over the particular fraud referenced above. MM: This is pure speculation. You have no basis for this claim. Here is my response: If ARIN’s policies directed that we would auction the recovered resources I am confident that the particular fraud referenced above would _never have happened in the first place_, and the outcome of any litigation would not have been affected. (We can trade “I am confident that…” claims all day)
_______________________________________________ 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.
