[anti-abuse-wg] Fradulent ARIN WHOIS - NET-24-187-234-184-1

As you all know, I have bemoaned the fact here that no effort
whatsoever is expended, on the part of _any_ RiR, to vet the
name, address, or even phone number associated with any number
resource registration record.

Based on the evidence, I do understand that I'm apparently the
only one on this list who cares one wit about that issue, so
the following may perhaps have no interest to anyone here...
other than me... but I did just want to pop in briefly and
mention that while *all* cases of deliberate fraud and/or
concealment in RiR WHOIS records bother me, some do so more
than others.  This one, for example:

=========================================================================
NetRange:       24.187.234.184 - 24.187.234.191
CIDR:           24.187.234.184/29
NetName:        OOL-STATIC-OSNGNY-24-187-234-184-29
NetHandle:      NET-24-187-234-184-1
Parent:         OOL-STATIC-CT-24-187-224-0-20 (NET-24-187-224-0-1)
NetType:        Reassigned
OriginAS:       AS6128
Customer:       ERIC HOTEHAM (C01876138)
RegDate:        2008-02-01
Updated:        2008-02-01
Ref:            https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-24-187-234-184-1


CustName:       ERIC HOTEHAM
Address:        15 OLD HOUSE LN
City:           CHAPPAQUA
StateProv:      NY
PostalCode:     10514
Country:        US
RegDate:        2008-02-01
Updated:        2011-03-19
Ref:            https://whois.arin.net/rest/customer/C01876138

OrgAbuseHandle: SIS16-ARIN
OrgAbuseName:   Static IP Services
OrgAbusePhone:  +1-516-803-3000 
OrgAbuseEmail:  hostmaster at cv.net
OrgAbuseRef:    https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/SIS16-ARIN

OrgTechHandle: SIS16-ARIN
OrgTechName:   Static IP Services
OrgTechPhone:  +1-516-803-3000 
OrgTechEmail:  hostmaster at cv.net
OrgTechRef:    https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/SIS16-ARIN

RTechHandle: SIS16-ARIN
RTechName:   Static IP Services
RTechPhone:  +1-516-803-3000 
RTechEmail:  hostmaster at cv.net
RTechRef:    https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/SIS16-ARIN
=========================================================================

It seems to me that it is self-evident, based on the available evidence,
facts, and news reports, that at the very least, there is a case which
can be made, and argued, in favor of the proposition that the apparent
misspelling of the customer name in the above record was deliberate,
and done with the intention to conceal.

Unfortunately, nobody other than me apparently gives a rat's ass about
such things, and thus, the record above remains incorrect, or arguably,
downright fradulent.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/is-the-mysterious-eric-hoteham-actually-longtime-clinton-aide-eric-hothem/


P.S.  Before anyone asks, and before anyone attempts to impugn my motives
for raising this issue, for the record, no, I am not, by any stretch of
the imagination, a supporter of that _other_ leading crook either.