On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the folks involved as they established a fiefdom of their own rather than integrating with the organizations that existed.
As you are aware, there are individuals and businesses who operate as a “Doing Business As/DBA" or on behalf on an unincorporated organization at the time of issuance; it is a more common occurrence than one might imagine, and we have to deal with the early registrations appropriately based on the particular circumstance. ARIN promptly put processes in place so that such registrations, having been made on behalf of a particular purpose or organization, do not get misappropriated to become rights solely of the point of contact held for personal gain – indeed, there are cases where organizations are created with similar names for the purposes of hijacking number resources, but such cases don’t generally involve principles who were involved in the administration of the resources since issuance nor do they involve formalization of the registrant into a public benefit not-for-profit organization.
Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated to a _purpose_. You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to be reassigned to an organization, this ARDC, and then treated the organization as a proxy for the purpose. No one asked you to do that. Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach organizations to the purpose-based allocations and certainly nothing demanded that you grant such organizations identical control over the resources as the control possessed by folks who were the intended direct recipients of assignments. I guess you thought that would avoid having ARIN make judgement calls each time about whether the registrant for a purpose-based allocation was acting in the best interest of the purpose? It doesn't. It just makes ARIN look like a party to fraud. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/