[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-7 Compliance Requirement

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Mon May 30 00:43:51 EDT 2011

Then we just need to cognizant that we're leaving it to ARIN staff's
discretion as to what is interpreted to be "materially out of compliance"
and that this introduces a gray area which is much more disputable than
applying the standard ARIN uses with applications. 


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2011 12:26 AM
To: Stephen Sprunk
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-7 Compliance Requirement

On May 28, 2011, at 1:46 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> On 28-May-11 01:56, Frank Bulk wrote:
>> In regard to ARIN counsel's discussion about "lack of compliance" -- ARIN
staff make that determination on new requests each and every day (i.e. the
request meets the policies or they don't).  It's not clear to me how
reviewing a current resource holder's compliancy requires "black and white",
or only to look at a subset of policies.  To be sure, a review does not
include the applicant's documentation, but that could be requested if what's
readily available is insufficient to verify compliancy.
> NRPM 12.4 and the original version of this proposal use the expression
> "materially out of compliance".  It is fairly easy to determine if
> someone is out of compliance, but how does staff (or a court, if ARIN is
> sued) determine whether the non-compliance is material?  That was the
> point of 12.4(a), which this proposal would rename to 12.4.1.  The
> authors' intent was to leave that to staff's discretion, which is known
> to be rather liberal.
The intent of requiring an organization to be materially out of compliance
was so that an organization that was out of compliance, but, by a reasonably
small amount and/or likely to grow into compliance in a relatively short
period of time wouldn't have to undergo renumbering/reclamation
and then submit another request in short order.

> To strike the word "materially" from this policy, as the most recent
> revision of this proposal does, will radically alter its effect by
> forcing ARIN staff to do evil and/or stupid things.  If the current
> wording is legally challenging, I would suggest that it is a better
> course of action to find a more defensible wording rather than to
> abandon the idea of letting smart people do smart things.
Yes, this is a very bad change, IMHO.

I don't believe that the word materially is a problem and Steve Ryan
didn't have a problem with it in the original section 12.

>> I agree that words "fraud" and "materially" are loaded words and that by
itself requires that this proposal be re-written.
> Those words are in the current text, so they are not defects in this
> proposal per se, and editorial changes should be separate from
> deliberate policy changes.

Correct. I don't see them as particularly loaded in the way they were
implemented in the original section 12 and I see no reason to shy 
away from them here.


You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list