[LACNIC/Politicas] Host Sailor, Ltd.

[Arturo Servin]

Hi,

This might be useful:

http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-7

Whether or not the organization reported by Mr. Guilmette has broken LACNIC
policies is subject to be investigated, it seems that there is a mechanism
to deal with fraudulent organizations.

Regards
as

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 at 16:51 Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
wrote:

>
> Mr Rojas,
>
> In your latest response to me on this list, you suggested that I have
> misused this mailing list to discuss issues that are unrelated to
> LACNIC policy.  I respectfully disagree, and I will make my case more
> fully below.
>
> I believe that you and your fellow staff members of LACNIC have made
> and are making serious errors in your interpretation and application
> of the true intent and spirit of existing LACNIC policies, and that
> these errors in the interpretation of existing LACNIC policies are
> materially harming not only LACNIC members, but the entire Internet
> community worldwide.
>
> If there is some better place to discuss the proper interpretation and
> application of LACNIC policies and/or new policy proposals that would
> correct these LACNIC staff misinterprerations of existing LACNIC policies,
> then by all means, please do tell me where that better place might be,
> and then I will go and post there instead of here.
>
> Until then however, I wish to continue to present evidence here about
> the absurd results of your misinterpretation of existing LACNIC policy,
> results which apparently endorse and allow parties that have -zero-
> actual footprint within the LACNIC region to hold onto sizable blocks
> of IPv4 number resources.
>
> I respond in detail to your various points below.
>
> Before I do however, allow me to clarify *up front* that the real issue
> I have attempted to raise here is *not* the possibility or probability
> of either the customers of HostSailor or HostSailor itself enganging in
> criminal acts.   The real issue I have attempted to raise here is whether
> or not HostSailor has effectively defrauded LACNIC itself out of two
> valuable and precious /22 blocks.  That is, quite obviously, the *only*
> issue that LACNIC can do anything about, and it is an issue which, I
> believe, LACNIC is morally, ethically, and legally obliged to do
> something about, under a correct interpretation of existing LACNIC
> policies.
>
> In message <78f4435d-8861-bb11-9fcf-58b59fac0070 at lacnic.net>, you wrote:
>
> >According to LACNIC policy (1.11),   The numbering resources under the
> >stewardship of LACNIC must be distributed among organizations legally
> >constituted within its service region and mainly serving networks and
> >services operating in this region. External clients connected directly
> >to main infrastructure located in the region are allowed.
>
> That is, of course, an entirely appropriate LACNIC policy, as a general
> matter.  But how does (or how should) that general policy be applied in
> the specific case of this organization calling itself HostSailor?
>
> As I noted in my prior message, simple traceroutes demonstrate convincingly
> that this company has -zero- infrastructure within the LACNIC region.  In
> fact, I believe that the facts will show that it -never- had any equipment
> or infrastructure of any kind within the LACNIC region.  Given that fact,
> will LACNIC now take back the 131.72.136/22 and 138.99.216/22 blocks,
> since they are clearly -not- being used in accordance with LACNIC policy?
>
> Doesn't LACNIC have legitimate members who actually *do* have actual and
> real infrastructure within the LACNIC region who desperately need more
> IPv4 addresses, and who could make good and legitimate use of the two
> /22 block in question for their actual infrastructure within the region?
>
> >As mentioned in our previous response, HostSailor provided legal
> >documentation demonstrating their legal presence in Belize, and
> >presented a plan detailing how they will use the resources in the
> >region, complying at that moment with the requirements established in
> >the policies developed by our community.
>
> I will try to be clear about this.  It is my contention that HostSailor's
> creation of a Belizian corporation was an outright *fraud* and that it was
> done *only* for the purpose of obtaining some scarce and precious LACNIC
> IPv4 address space... which is exactly what the company has done.
>
> You only have to do a little research on the Belize mailing address that
> HostSailor has been using in conjunction with their two LACNIC /22
> address blocks in order to understand what this address really is.
> Here is the address:
>
>      16 Lauren Berges Crescent, Belama Phase-3 2, Belize City, BZ
>
> If you simply google for that address, as I have done, then you will
> quickly learn that this address is used by SEVERAL shady companies,
> including even one named Green Road Corporation which is named in a
> current *criminal* complaint, filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
> Comission against a number of parties relating to a massive stock fraud
> scheme:
>
>      https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2016/comp23471.pdf
>      (see page 2 for named defendant Green Road Corporation)
>
> To be entirely clear, I am *not* saying that HostSailor has any specific
> relationship to this Green Road Corporation that is currently the subject
> of a U.S. SEC criminal action, other than the fact that they both have
> used the same mailing address... an apartment in Belize City... as their
> address for legal purposes, along with *several* other companies.
>
> It is actually not all that surprising that HostSailor and many other
> companies (including the crininal stock manipulators of Green Road
> Corporation) are all using the exact same Belize mailing address.  I
> have seen this type of thing many times before.
>
> The reason several companies give the exact same mailing address...
> usually just a post office box, but in this case a small apartment in
> Belize City... is because there is a company at that address which is
> in the business of creating so-called "offshore" paper-only companies
> for other parties.  And in the case of HostSailor's alleged "16 Lauren
> Berges Crescent" address it is simple to find that incorporation company.
> We only have to googling for the address to find it.  Here is the
> "offshore" incorporation company in question:
>
>         https://www.belize-offshore.info/
>
> (Note that this company is not even run by a Belizian citizen.  As the
> WHOIS record for the domain shows, this incorporation company is itself
> actually run by a Russian gentleman named Konstantin Titov, most probably
> from Moscow.)
>
> That fact that HostSailor created a fictitious paper-only company in
> Belize only so that it could get its hands on some nice valuable
> chunks of LACNIC IPv4 real estate should really not be all that
> surprising to anyone given these additional known facts about HostSailor,
> which speak to the general character (or lack thereof) of the owner
> of the company:
>
>     (1) HostSailor has previously done the exact same thing also in the
>         "offshore" jurisdiction of the United Arab Emirates, where it
>         also created a secretive and untracable paper-only company that
>         also did not allow anyone to find out who the actual "beneficial
>         owners" of the company are.  (This is a unique feature of both
>         Belize and UAE companies.  They are both totally untracable and
>         anonymous, which explains why international criminals like them
>         so much.)
>
>     (2) As TrendMicro, Brian Krebs, and myself have all now pointed out
>         in public postings, this company, HostSailor, is not exactly a
>         shining model of honesty and/or integrity.  It has allowed various
>         hacker criminals to use its IP address space repeatedly and
>         continually since the company's formation, barely three years
>         ago.  And in fact, the HostSailor was created by the same man
>         who had owned the norotious "bulletproof" hosting company called
>         Santrex, before it was effectively forced off the Internet in 2013.
>
> To be clear, I *do not* expect or ask that LACNIC respond in any way to the
> various criminal activities taking place within Hostsailor's allocated IP
> address space.  That is the job of law enforcement.  Everyone, including
> myself, agrees on that.  I have only tried to provide some background
> information about Santrex/HostSailor so that you, Mr. Rojas, and everyone
> within the LACNIC community will fully appreciate that the owner of this
> company has no morality and no ethics.  Now that everyone can see that,
> it now should also be much easier for everyone to understand and appreciate
> that the owner of HostSailor certainly would not hesitate to use dirty
> tricks, fraud, and paper-only companies as a means to fradulently obtain
> IPv4 blocks from LACNIC, even if he has no legitimate right to such blocks,
> at least under a *correct* interpretation of the well-established LACNIC
> rules and policies.
>
> >We appreciate the information you have provided about the utilization of
> >these resources outside the Latin America and Caribbean region and we
> >are going to further investigate the matter and follow our policies in
> >that process.
>
> Thank you Mr. Rojas.  I am looking forward to the correct application of
> the existing LACNIC policies in this case.
>
> I want to be clear however.  The simplest way I can put this so that
> everyone will immediately understand my point is for me to say, with
> respect to the LACNIC policies, "There is a bug in your system."
> HostSailor has now found this bug, and has exploited it for its own
> sinister and corrupt ends.
>
> The "bug" in this case is just this:  LACNIC has sometimes allocated
> scarce IPv4 address space to fradulent "paper only" companies that have
> been created, in particular, within the secretive and criminal-friendly
> "offshore" jursidiction of Belize.  It appears that LACNIC staff have
> issued such allocations because doing so *seems* to be "required" by
> the existing LACNIC policies which oblige LACNIC to give IP address
> blocks to *any* company that appears to be "legally constituted" anywhere
> within the LACNIC region.
>
> However, as we see in this specific case (HostSailor) -and others-,
> *any party* that actually resides *anywhere in the world* can simply
> purchase
> a "Belize" corporation, anonymously, and over the Internet, and that
> party can then use that fiction of a company to obtain and/or maintain
> allocations of scarce IPv4 address blocks from LACNIC.  As indicated at
> the URL given above, any party can do this for as little as $400 USD,
> quickly, easily, inexpensively, and in a single afternoon.
>
> The fact that anybody, anywhere in the world can so easly defraud LACNIC
> out of valuable IPv4 address space is a "bug" in the LACNIC system, and
> one that has been, and that *is being* exploited.  That bug, that loophole,
> should be fixed, and immediately.  It is unfair and unjust to deny IPv4
> addresses to legitimate companies that really are within the LACNIC
> region, even as other companies that are not really within the region
> are allowed to obtain or... in the case of HostSailor... maintain
> allocations which were obtained by means of simple and obvious fraud.
>
> >Regarding your allegations of illegal activities by HostSailor, even if
> >they are effectively accurate, we do not have established any
> >procedures, policy nor contractual right to proceed...
>
> See above.  Mr. Rojas, I agree with you completely.  It is clearly not
> the job of LACNIC to act as "The Internet Police", and LACNIC cannot
> and should not be in the business of either investigating cybercrime
> in general, or in reacting to it.
>
> However it is *not* cybercrime "in general" that caused me to write to
> this mailing list.  Rather, I have written to this mailinmg list in
> order to report what appears to be a clear-cut case where LACNIC itself
> has been defrauded, and to request that LACNIC now respond to that fraud,
> and take appropriate corrective action to reverse and nullify the negative
> effects of this fraud against LACNIC itself, as it can, should, and must
> do, in accordance with a correct and reasonable interpretation of existing
> LACNIC policies.
>
> As I understand it, existing LACNIC policies do not allow legal entities
> that have -zero- actual infrastructure within the region to either
> obtain or maintain LACNIC-allocated number resources.  I believe that
> all available evidence will show that HostSailor has -zero- actual
> infrastructure within the region.  It has no servers, no routers, no
> connections to other providers within the region, no offices, no desks,
> no phones, no FAX machines, no offices, no secretaries, no technicians,
> no employees, and no equipment or installations of any kind within the
> LACNIC region.  All it does have is a canceled check for $400 USD and
> a thin piece of paper that says that the company maintains a "legal"
> mailing address within a small apartment in Belize City... the exact
> same apartment where *several* other fictitious companies... including
> one currently being criminally prosecuted by the United States Securities
> and Exchange Commission... are also allegedly domiciled.
>
> Now that LACNIC has been informed about all of these irregularities
> related to HostSailor, if LACNIC continues to allow this legal fiction
> called HostSailor to maintain the IPv4 address allocations that it
> obtained from LACNIC, then this will represent a travesty of justice
> as well as representing LACNIC's willingness to look the other way,
> even as LACNIC itself is being defrauded via a simple and obvious
> "legal" scheme.  I believe that all of the legitimate LACNIC members
> deserve better, and I hope to see this unfortunate fraud being reversed
> and corrected as soon as it is practical to do so.
>
> Again, I am *not* asking LACNIC to act in the capacity of law enforcement.
> That would be wrong.  I am only asking LACNIC to do its job... to do
> exactly
> what it was formed to do, i.e. to act as a "good steward" of the number
> resources which have been placed into its care.  LACNIC will have failed
> in that responsibility if it continues to allow itself to be defrauded
> by this company, HostSailor, only because the company has found and
> exploited a clever "legal" ruse to obtain IPv4 space that it would
> otherwise not be at all entitled to.
>
> >As explained in the previous paragraph we are following our role the
> >community has defined in the policies for the assignment of internet
> >addresses,
>
> I'm sorry, but I must disagree Mr. Rojas.  If you indeed plan to contine
> to allow HostSailor to enjoy the benefits of the two LACNIC /22 blocks
> that it has obtained by means of its clever legalistic fraud, then in
> that case you may perhaps use the excuse that you are following the
> "letter" of the LACNIC policy (which requires LACNIC to give IP space
> to any legal entity within the region) but you cannot with a straight
> face say that you are following the "spirit" or the true intent of the
> existing LACNIC policies.  The spirit and intent of LACNIC policy is
> clear: To serve the needs of the Internet community that is -actually-
> located within the Latin American and Caribbean geographical area.
>
> HostSailor is -not- within the LACNIC region in any real sense.
>
> Despite the purchased and manufactured fiction of HostSailor's location
> within Belize, all actual evidence relating to all of HostSailor's
> actual assets and infrastructure indicate that it has no real presence
> whatsoever within the LACNIC region, and never has had any.  Thus, if
> you and LACNIC are now going to claim... as you seem to be doing...
> that HostSailor should be permitted to keep the two /22 blocks that
> were given to it (under false pretenses) by LACNIC, only because it
> has purchased one flimsey piece of paper that proves nothing, then
> you are -not- in fact "following the role the community has defined
> in the policies".  Rather, you are, in effect, -defending- the
> clever legal trickery that HostSailor has used to defraud LACNIC
> and to obtain number resources... number resources which the clear
> intent and spirit of the LACNIC policies would not permit it to have.
>
> Are you really going to defend the idea that LACNIC will give out /21
> sized blocks to anyone who presents LACNIC with a single piece of
> paper that anybody anywhere in the world can purchase in an afternoon
> for a mere $400??
>
> If so, then I would like to propose a new LACNIC policy, on this mailing
> list, that would prohibit all LACNIC staff from allowing any legal
> entity to either obtain or maintain LACNIC-allocated number resources
> purely and only on the basis of legal fictions that are manufactured,
> upon request, in particular within Belize or any other country within
> the LACNIC region that allows companies to be formed in the total
> absence of any information about the actual "beneficial ownership" of
> these companies.
>
> (Note that this exact type of reform has already been accomplished within
> the financial sector, and it is nowadays much more difficult than it was
> in past years to launder money through places like the Cayman Islands,
> the British Virgin Islands, and other such traditional corporate secrecy
> havens.  If this sort of accountability and transparency can be achieved
> within the sphere of financial transactions, there is no reason why there
> should not likewise exist some minimal amount of accountability and
> transparency with respect to valuable IPv4 real estate.)
>
> >so we kindly request to keep this mailing list for the
> >purposes it was established (update or propose a new one).
>
> You are suggesting that I have been discussing matters here, on this
> mailing list, that do not relate gto LACNIC policies.  Once again, I
> must respectfully disagree Mr. Rojas.
>
> What could possibly be more relevant to this exact mailing list than a
> discussion of the correct interpretation of, and the correct application
> of existing LACNIC policies?
>
> Indeed, in the posting to which I am responding now, you defended the
> LACNIC allocations that were made... and that still exist... to HostSailor
> on the basis of one possible interpretation of the existing LACNIC
> policies relating to IPv4 block allocations.  For all the reasons noted
> above, I assert that any interpretation of LACNIC policies that allows
> this crooked company... which doesn't have -any- assets within the LACNIC
> region...to keeep its current LACNIC allocations is just plain wrong.
>
> So you see, we -are- quite clearly debating serious LACNIC policy
> questions.  Isn't this the LACNIC "Policy" mailing list?  If it is,
> then I fail to see how or why this discussion is somehow off-topic for
> this list.
>
> >Finally, the fact that the person who responds to your questions is
> >listed at the bottom of an alphabetically ordered list, doesn't make me
> >less authorized to answer you, if that is what you implied by your tone
> >in your message. I'm in charge of analyzing IP requests in LACNIC and
> >have the authority to answer you. I request you to communicate with
> >respect to me or anyone in this list if you want to keep this dialogue.
>
> Mr. Rojas, it is my sincere hope that we can both show respect for each
> other.  That goes both ways.
>
> I feel that you were too quick to be dismissive of the important issues
> I have raised with respect to this case (HostSailor), and that you have
> not treated either me or the issues I have raised here with any real
> respect whatsoever.
>
> As I have noted at length above, there are, I think, clear reasons why
> (a) HostSailor's LACNIC IPv4 allocations should be immediately revoked
> and (b) that this can be done and indeed must be done under existing
> LACNIC policy and that (c) if in fact LACNIC staff is asserting that
> HostSailor is actually entitled, under current policy, to the LACNIC-
> issued IPv4 block allocations that it currently has, then either LACNIC
> staff is wrong, or the policy is wrong, or perhaps both.
>
> These are all substantive *Policy* issues, and yet you dismissed my
> original posting as if I was just some schoolboy who had wandered by
> mistake into the wrong classroom.
>
> In future, I will endeavor to strike a tone which is in all ways utterly
> respectful towards you and all other LACNIC staff.  My hope is that you
> will likewise and similarly accord me and the valid policy issues I have
> raised with appropriate respect.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>