Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

On Fri, 24 Jun 2022, 08:01 Louie Lee via ARIN-PPML, wrote: > Ronald, > > I may even further add onto John's excellent explanation that the > individuals within this community do not even have to reside in the ARIN > service region to participate in ARIN policy discussions! > > Louie > Hi Louie

[arin-ppml] Interpretation Question -- ARIN Code of Conduct

My apologies for interrupting ongoing discusions of pending policy proposals, but I have reason at the moment to seek views regarding people's interpretations of the word "harassment" as used repeatedly within the ARIN Code of Conduct. I should begin by saying that my sudden interest in this

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

Ronald, I may even further add onto John's excellent explanation that the individuals within this community do not even have to reside in the ARIN service region to participate in ARIN policy discussions! Louie On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 11:15 PM John Santos wrote: > Hi Ronald - > > "Members"

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

Hi Ronald - "Members" are people (or more typically corporations or other legal entities) that have purchased an ARIN membership. I think in general, this comes along with purchasing ARIN resources, i.e. requesting IP addresses or ASN's, signing an RSA, and paying an annual fee. Members get

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

In message Matthew Wilder wrote: >Would-be fraudsters on the transfer market would >now face significant cost to execute a transfer, and presumably, an >organization operating in bad faith could easily provide officer >attestation. Are these attestations signed "under penality of perjury"? If

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

I am not a member, so I'm not even sure if my vote even counts, but I also am opposed to this proposal. Regards, rfg ___ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

From my perspective, it is not redundant unless we start requiring the RSA to be signed by a corporate officer and apply that requirement to any transfer applicant whose RSA was not already signed by a corporate officer (i.e. make them have an officer sign a new RSA). Owen > On Jun 23, 2022,

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

Thank you Owen for your response. This is a reasonable point. I agree that some explicit accountability is achieved through attestation. I do wonder whether this too may be redundant. For instance, do other legal artifacts - especially RSA - provide enough of a framework for accountability to

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

> On Jun 23, 2022, at 09:06 , Matthew Wilder wrote: > > Hi Noah, et al. > > It appears that a few of you are not convinced of the problem statement for > this Draft policy. Just a reminder this is a draft policy authored by the > Policy Experience Working Group, to solve a customer

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

On a related attestations, but weren't in the NRPM, in 2021 ARIN conducted a consultation on the state of attestations for other operational practices. Consultation on Retiring the Officer Attestation Requirement https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2021-August/thread.html While I

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

Hi Matthew, Thank you for reminding us that this relates only to transfers of expensive IP addresses. So protections against fraud which were vital to protect the free pool can be relaxed a bit in the context of buying addresses. I don’t think this is a very important issue, but we

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

Hi Noah, Thank you for your response. Your perspective is noted. Regards, Matthew On Thu., Jun. 23, 2022, 10:07 a.m. Noah, wrote: > Hi Matthew > > In my humble opinion, attestation is a very fundamental obligation and > responsibility. The obligator is accountable and lack of accountability

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

Hi Matthew In my humble opinion, attestation is a very fundamental obligation and responsibility. The obligator is accountable and lack of accountability is what creates room for fraud. Removing a means by which the parties involved are able to retain confidence in the process is rather unwise.

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

Hi Noah, et al. It appears that a few of you are not convinced of the problem statement for this Draft policy. Just a reminder this is a draft policy authored by the Policy Experience Working Group, to solve a customer experience problem identified by staff. Also, taking off my AC hat and putting

Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5

I also am against removing the attestation. I think Noah nailed it. Get Outlook for iOS From: ARIN-PPML on behalf of John Santos Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 10:14 To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy