[113782] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jo Rhett)
Tue Apr 21 17:46:43 2009
From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@netconsonance.com>
To: <frnkblk@iname.com>
In-Reply-To: <!&!AAAAAAAAAAAuAAAAAAAAAKTyXRN5/+lGvU59a+P7CFMBAN6gY+ZG84BMpVQcAbDh1IQAAAATbSgAABAAAAAz5618dYpKSpqFLtAHKwcYAQAAAAA=@iname.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:46:27 -0700
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
> There's a big difference between signing that the books are right (it
> matters!) and filling out paperwork for ARIN. The first is one of his
> primary duties as an officer of the company, the second won't even
> make his
> secretary's "to do" list.
>
> It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space issue to
> the CxO
> level -- if it was interested in honesty, ARIN would have required a
> notarized statement by the person submitting the request.
No. Those are two entirely different problems.
A notary signs only that the person in front of them has been checked
to be who they say they are. That's authentication. A Notary cannot
attest that what is on the document is valid.
A CxO signing that the request is valid is Authorization to speak for
the company. Different spectrum.
--
Jo Rhett
Net Consonance : consonant endings by net philanthropy, open source
and other randomness
