> On Aug 31, 2021, at 12:17 , John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 31 Aug 2021, at 2:23 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely >>> internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data >>> center? Sure… and some of these are indeed legitimate and fulfilled per >>> policy. We also have folks who get creative and make similar requests for >>> purposes of obtaining address blocks from ARIN – absent any bona fide >>> networking need –for subsequent monetization and these reviewed, revoked, >>> and can be referred to criminal fraud proceedings. >> >> Yes, but in the ARIN region, you have also made it very clear that if needs >> change, ARIN will not attempt to revoke or reclaim space based on that >> change in need. > > Owen - > > ARIN has full authority to revoke number resources based on breach of our > Registration Services Agreement (RSA) by a customer. We do exercise that > authority with significant caution, but will do so when the situation > warrants – and I would expect any other RIR to do the same in enforcing the > particular terms of their own RSA agreement.
Agreed. Nonetheless, you have repeatedly stood in front of the community and stated that if the only violation of ARIN policy is insufficient utilization, ARIN will not take action against the organization to revoke or reclaim the resources. > As I understand it, AFRINIC has initiated a rather small number of resource > reviews after completion of its most recent database audit – one might argue > that they should have initiated more/fewer/none-at-all, but one cannot > logically assert that AFRINIC lacks the right to enforce the plain language > of their RSA agreement when a review indicates that a breach of that > agreement has occurred. Depending on your definition of rather small. I hear it’s ≥ 1% of all resource holders so far and climbing. > You also may not like that the AFRINIC RSA has recipients acknowledging that > they are 'bestowed with an exclusive right of use of those number resources > within the ambit of the “need” which it has justified in its application and > for no other purpose during the currency of the present agreement’, but > please recognize that "your client” apparently liked that provision well > enough to agree to it in order to receive the address blocks – so there’s > really not much more to be said in this regard. Please also note that there is a provision further down in the agreement for dealing with modifications as they come up. Whether my client did or did not comply with that provision is a matter for the courts at this point and I can’t comment on the exact nature of that particular issue as a result. However, I think there is adequate public information available to show that there is at least some legitimate dispute as to the facts of whether my client is is or is not in compliance with the RSA. I look forward to the courts decision on the matter as once that comes, I will be able to talk more freely regardless of the outcome. Owen
