Such a percentage was proposed last year, and rejected by the community. ARIN-2014-1 proposes to allow out of region use. Based on the discussion in Baltimore, I think it would be appropriate to have an absolute minimum amount of in-region resource use before an organization qualifies to count its out-of-region use toward its total requirements. I think a good threshold is a /22 for IPv4, a /44 (or /48) for IPv6, or 1 ASN, respectively.
Would that address your concern? -Scott On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 10/14/2014 3:56 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> On Oct 13, 2014, at 19:31 , Adam Thompson<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> John, or Leslie, or any other board or staff: >>> Has ARIN considered - and possibly rejected - any of these options: >>> 1. Developing a dedicated Fraud investigation department or team, or >>> >> >> This can be done, but it will not yield any different results in the case >> of an organization that is "making fake contracts with unexists or >> imaginable >> customers and making up the equipment list and purchase invoices, which >> make >> their business looks like the same as the real one." (as stated by >> xiaofan) >> >> 2. Hiring translators and/or bilingual or "bicultural" (spell check OK'd >>> that so I guess it's a word!) staff to mitigate the difficulty in doing >>> these investigations, or >>> 3. Outsourcing foreign fraud investigations, possibly with the >>> assistance (direct or otherwise) of the relevant RIR? >>> >> >> We actually have very good working relationships with the other RIRs for >> this reason, and have asked for assistance as needed for translation and >> data verification... This is rather labor intensive, and will not uncover >> fabricated data that has been diligently prepared, as verification of both >> customer and business contact information is exceedingly difficult in some >> countries outside of the ARIN service region (even if undertaken by the >> RIR >> servicing that area.) >> >> We have been able to detect fraudulent applications that were similar in >> character to this case (and do reject such), but we routinely see these >> sorts of requests, i.e. ones backed by nominal in region presence and >> entirely out of region customer demand. >> >> > Perhaps a policy proposal of a requirement of 70% of IP numbering > requested must be used for in-region demand, would be in order? > > Ted > > > FYI, >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
