US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.
> >This is a big issue, and ARIN may not be the right place. But ARIN is in
> >a position to say "if we grant you this block, you are subject to some
> >reciprocial obligations...".
> ARIN, as well as the other registries, already caveat allocations by
> stating that they may not be routable in the global Internet. What's
> the issue here?
The issue is that one may jump through many hoops to get a block from ARIN
only to discover that some ISP has decided to not accept or honor routing
information that would allow that block to be reached from smaller or
larger parts of the net.
ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so,
impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or
capricious treatment of other grantees. [Kim just sent a note indicating
that, at least at the outset, ARIN would not be imposing such a
It's kinda fun listening to the ISP voices saying "we wanna be
independent, we wanna be the final authority, we wanna make our own
choices without regard for anyone else."
But that game can be played by others as well, including ARIN. An ISP
that says "we reserve the ultimate right to determine which traffic we
will carry" should not complain if ARIN says to it "if you don't want to
play by our rules, you don't get an address block."
This is one of those situations which reflect the fact that "regulation of
ARIN" by its membership is really not regulation. Since the membership
(and BoT and AC) are, in practice, going to be the existing ISPs, the
policies of ARIN will be essentially those desired by the existing ISPs,
not necessarily what is best for the public (the same public that will be
granting the tax exemptions.)
This is not something which has an easy answer, but we should seriously
consider whether ARIN ought to try some mild measures to rein-in the "wild
west" attitude of every ISP for itself.