Looks like I managed to send this on Thursday from the wrong address. Oops.
Begin forwarded message: > From: Robert Seastrom > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Fraud reporting question > Date: June 24, 2015 at 1:34:20 PM EDT > To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > Cc: Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > On Jun 24, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Jun 24, 2015, at 05:53 , Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Jun 23, 2015, at 19:34 , Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Richard Jimmerson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> Hello Adam, >>>> >>>> Thank you for submitting these questions about fraud reporting. >>>> >>>> We have found the fraud reporting system to be very helpful over the past >>>> few years. We receive many different types of fraud reports through this >>>> system. Some of them have helped ARIN begin investigations that have >>>> resulted in both the recovery of falsely registered resources and the >>>> denial of some IPv4 requests that might have otherwise been issued >>>> resources. >>>> >>>> According to the fraud results page, ~2% (of 146) resulted in further >>>> investigation. >>>> >>>> That''s a problem. Either. There is no real fraud or, ARIN is powerless >>>> to deal with it. The last time ARIN updated the "Results" page appears to >>>> be September 2014 based on the last noted ticket number of >>>> ARIN-20140929-F1760. >>> >>> There’s another possibility which seems entirely likely to me. >>> >>> Of 146 fraud reports, 2% cover legitimate fraud. Most fraud likely goes >>> unreported. >>> >>> That's possible, but I think this raises a question. What exactly is >>> fraud? Generally, my guess is the only person who has any clue as to what a >>> fraud is or if its been committed is the person filling out the >>> application. The numbers are generally null because it's near undetectable >>> other than a whistle blower coming forward. >> >> I’ll let ARIN staff give the definitive answer, but my understanding (which >> may not be 100% correct but should be relatively close) is addresses >> obtained or held in a manner inconsistent with the policies stated in the >> NRPM and/or in violation of the RSA. > > I can't speak to mail received at the fraud reporting address, however I can > speak to the mailing list AUP address since I've served on the AUP committee. > > During my tenure, the vast majority of complaints received at the AUP address > are from individuals who have mistaken ARIN for the Internet Police. > Complaints about spam, firewall alerts, or similar such things were the order > of the day. In-scope complaints about individuals' conduct on the list were > the rare exception. > > It would certainly not surprise me if the 98% of "fraud reports" contain a > lot of that sort of thing. It's hard to produce meaningful statistics > against such a high-noise source; allowing complaints that are out of scope > to not be counted at all would be a defeat for transparency. At the same > time, publishing an unexpurgated archive of all the complaints has its own > set of concerns. > > -r > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
