[LACNIC/Politicas] Host Sailor, Ltd.
Carlos Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Tue Aug 16 10:54:37 BRT 2016
Dear people,
When reading the Washington Post today I got a Host Sailor ad
(attached), and this led me to check some details on them. I pasted
below some whois results. I know I am stepping on a lot of eggs here,
surrounded by people who are orders of magnitude better informed than I
am on these tricks of the trade, as it were. But just to try and help to
clarify I dare to post this.
First, the whois on the IP number 131.72.136.7 pointed by
hostsailor.com. Two interesting details:
- the IP block Status is listed as "reallocated" (this category should
be a NetType in the whois jargon). What does this mean in this case?
- the listed phone number is in central Los Angeles, so they seem to
have a tech op in LA - so may be accountable to US laws somehow?
Second, the whois on Host Sailor's AS60117, under RIPE, which includes,
among several blocks, the 131.72.136.0/22 supposedly belonging to the
LACNIC pool.
I am not sure what to make of this. Does it look like the IP block was
transferred from LACNIC to RIPE, and this would explain the "reallocated
status" in the LACNIC whois response?
fraternal regards
--c.a.
==============================
Whois response on IP number 131.72.136.7 (hostsailor.com)
cafonso at piccolo:~$ whois 131.72.136.7
#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
#
# If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at
# https://www.arin.net/public/whoisinaccuracy/index.xhtml
#
#
# The following results may also be obtained via:
#
https://whois.arin.net/rest/nets;q=131.72.136.7?showDetails=true&showARIN=false&showNonArinTopLevelNet=false&ext=netref2
#
NetRange: 131.72.0.0 - 131.72.255.255
CIDR: 131.72.0.0/16
NetName: LACNIC-ERX-131-72-0-0
NetHandle: NET-131-72-0-0-1
Parent: NET131 (NET-131-0-0-0-0)
NetType: Transferred to LACNIC
OriginAS:
Organization: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional
Registry (LACNIC)
RegDate: 2010-11-03
Updated: 2010-11-17
Comment: This IP address range is under LACNIC responsibility
Comment: for further allocations to users in LACNIC region.
Comment: Please see http://www.lacnic.net/ for further details,
Comment: or check the WHOIS server located at http://whois.lacnic.net
Ref: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-131-72-0-0-1
ResourceLink: http://lacnic.net/cgi-bin/lacnic/whois
ResourceLink: whois.lacnic.net
OrgName: Latin American and Caribbean IP address Regional Registry
OrgId: LACNIC
Address: Rambla Republica de Mexico 6125
City: Montevideo
StateProv:
PostalCode: 11400
Country: UY
RegDate: 2002-07-27
Updated: 2011-09-24
Ref: https://whois.arin.net/rest/org/LACNIC
ReferralServer: whois://whois.lacnic.net
ResourceLink: http://lacnic.net/cgi-bin/lacnic/whois
OrgAbuseHandle: LACNIC-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: LACNIC Whois Info
OrgAbusePhone: 999-999-9999
OrgAbuseEmail: whois-contact at lacnic.net
OrgAbuseRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/LACNIC-ARIN
OrgTechHandle: LACNIC-ARIN
OrgTechName: LACNIC Whois Info
OrgTechPhone: 999-999-9999
OrgTechEmail: whois-contact at lacnic.net
OrgTechRef: https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/LACNIC-ARIN
#
# ARIN WHOIS data and services are subject to the Terms of Use
# available at: https://www.arin.net/whois_tou.html
#
# If you see inaccuracies in the results, please report at
# https://www.arin.net/public/whoisinaccuracy/index.xhtml
#
Found a referral to whois.lacnic.net.
% Joint Whois - whois.lacnic.net
% This server accepts single ASN, IPv4 or IPv6 queries
% LACNIC resource: whois.lacnic.net
% Copyright LACNIC lacnic.net
% The data below is provided for information purposes
% and to assist persons in obtaining information about or
% related to AS and IP numbers registrations
% By submitting a whois query, you agree to use this data
% only for lawful purposes.
% 2016-08-16 10:08:50 (BRT -03:00)
inetnum: 131.72.136/24
status: reallocated
owner: HostSailor
ownerid: NL-HOST-LACNIC
responsible: Host Sailor Ltd.
address: Databarn Amsterdam, ,
address: - Amsterdam -
country: NL
phone: +1 2132344292 []
owner-c: HOM16
tech-c: HOT10
abuse-c: HOA7
inetrev: 131.72.136/24
nserver: NS1.NL.HOSTSAILOR.COM
nsstat: 20160815 AA
nslastaa: 20160815
nserver: NS2.NL.HOSTSAILOR.COM
nsstat: 20160815 AA
nslastaa: 20160815
created: 20140826
changed: 20140826
inetnum-up: 131.72.136/22
nic-hdl: HOA7
person: HostSailor Abuse
e-mail: abuse at HOSTSAILOR.COM
address: HDS Business Centre 3204, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, ,
address: 309096 - Dubai -
country: AE
phone: +1 2132344292 []
created: 20140815
changed: 20160307
nic-hdl: HOM16
person: HostSailor Management
e-mail: ripe at HOSTSAILOR.COM
address: HDS Business Centre 3204, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, ,
address: 309096 - Dubai -
country: AE
phone: +1 2132344292 []
created: 20140815
changed: 20160307
nic-hdl: HOT10
person: HostSailor Tech
e-mail: tech at HOSTSAILOR.COM
address: HDS Business Centre 3204, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, ,
address: 309096 - Dubai -
country: AE
phone: +1 2132344292 []
created: 20140815
changed: 20160307
% whois.lacnic.net accepts only direct match queries.
% Types of queries are: POCs, ownerid, CIDR blocks, IP
% and AS numbers.
------------------------------------------
Whois data pertaining to AS60117:
aut-num: AS60117
as-name: HS
descr: Host Sailor Ltd.
org: ORG-HSL15-RIPE
import: from AS43350 action pref=100; accept ANY
import: from AS9009 action pref=100; accept ANY
export: to AS43350 announce AS60117
export: to AS9009 announce AS60117
admin-c: AF11712-RIPE
tech-c: AF11712-RIPE
remarks: For information on "status:" attribute read
https://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/faq/faq-status-values-legacy-resources
status: ASSIGNED
notify: ripe at hostsailor.com
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-END-MNT
mnt-by: MNT-HS
created: 2014-05-13T09:43:21Z
last-modified: 2015-09-25T09:25:09Z
source: RIPE
organisation: ORG-HSL15-RIPE
org-name: Host Sailor Ltd.
org-type: LIR
address: HDS Business Centre 3204, Jumeirah Lakes Towers
address: N/A
address: Dubai
address: UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
phone: +12132344292
e-mail: ripe at hostsailor.com
mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
mnt-ref: MNT-HS
mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
abuse-mailbox: abuse at hostsailor.com
tech-c: AF11712-RIPE
abuse-c: HA3004-RIPE
created: 2014-12-30T11:58:01Z
last-modified: 2015-09-14T15:24:47Z
source: RIPE
person: Alexander Freeman
address: HDS Business Centre 3204
address: Jumeirah Lakes Towers
address: Dubai
address: United Arab Emirates
phone: +12132344292
nic-hdl: AF11712-RIPE
mnt-by: MNT-HS
abuse-mailbox: abuse at hostsailor.com
created: 2014-06-30T16:22:26Z
last-modified: 2015-09-14T15:22:32Z
source: RIPE
This AS points to several IP blocks, among them:
Netblock Description Num IPs
131.72.136.0/22 HOSTSAILOR 1,024
On 15/08/2016 17:11, Carlos Vera wrote:
> Excelente response from LACNIC
>
> Carlos Vera
>
> Enviado desde mi smartphone BlackBerry 10.
> Mensaje original
> De: Sergio Rojas. . .
> Enviado: lunes, 15 de agosto de 2016 14:55
> Para: politicas at lacnic.net
> Responder a: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
> Asunto: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Host Sailor, Ltd.
>
> Dear Mr. Guilmette,
>
> As we mentioned before, after your initial message we started our
> process approaching the organization HostSailor to commence an inquiry
> of the alleged use of the assigned resources outside of the LACNIC
> region. If the results of our investigation confirm the alleged out of
> region use, we would commence the revocation process of these resources,
> according to our policies.
>
> Ragarding what you comment about improving existing policies, everyone
> in the community can modify an existing policy or propose a new one.
> According to the Policy Development Process
> (http://www.lacnic.net/web/lacnic/proceso-de-desarrollo-de-politicas)
> new proposals are created by the community and then discussed in the
> policy list. Finally, the community is the one who reaches a consensus
> in order to approve policies. The process is open to all community
> members. Everyone can present a new policy proposal
> (https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/new). Last year LACNIC has
> implemented a new mechanism in order to provide assistance to any author
> who wants to present a new policy proposal; the policy shepherds. If you
> would like to contact a policy shepherd, please write to
> info-politicas at lacnic.net
>
> Thank you for the information you have provided. Let us know if we can
> help or give you more information about the Policy Development Process
> or any other process at LACNIC.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Sergio Rojas. . .
>
>
> El 13/08/16 a las 20:51, Ronald F. Guilmette escribió:
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>
--
Carlos A. Afonso
[emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário]
[emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]
Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br - http://cgi.br
ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br
GPG 0x9EE8F8E3
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: wpost_host_sailor_20160816.png
Type: image/png
Size: 231577 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/attachments/20160816/e7c1ab8a/attachment.png>
More information about the Politicas
mailing list