> On Jul 13, 2018, at 6:35 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com> > wrote: > I would like to know if there > is, or would be, general hostility to the notion of ARIN asking for > concrete documentation of the identities of the beneficial owners (say, > for 25% ownership or above) of non-publicly-traded corporate entities > to which ARIN assigns number resources.
One might term that “proactive implementation of Know Your Customer
best-practices.”
In other words, look at what KYC processes regulators require of their
regulated entities in other industries, and do the same, before someone thinks
to require it of us.
I have neither an argument for or against that yet, need to think about it
more, but a few points:
- Doing that in any _substantial_ way would add expense, since it will
dissuade some bad actors, but would encourage others to falsify documents or
otherwise give ARIN staff the run-around.
- It doesn’t appease your curiosity, since as I said before, the results of
KYC documentation wouldn’t be made public.
-Bill
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
