On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: > On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin <b...@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 b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/