[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Tue Jun 25 16:44:37 EDT 2013
> Problem Statement:
> ARIN number resources should be used primarily in the ARIN region,
> for ARIN region organizations.
I don't agree that the transition from the NSF to its successor
inherently created two or more disjoint resources, whether offered as
"legacy / modern" or as "region X / region Y". I don't agree that a
problem as framed exists.
> Policy Statement:
> Any entity (individual or organization) requesting ARIN issued IP blocks
> must provide ARIN with proof of an established legal presence in the
> designated ARIN region, and have a majority of their technical
> infrastructure and customers in the designated ARIN region. This
> requirement applies to both IPv4 and IPv6 address space.
I'm going through a choice of incorporation exercise, and part of the
exercise is determining which jurisdictions have nexus, and for what
Oregon has a telecommuter nexus, one of only two states, for the
purposes of ensuring that Oregonians who telecommute to another
jurisdiction have the ability to sue their employers in Oregon, not
the remote jurisdiction, also establish jurisdiction for state
corporate taxation purposes. Maine has a nexus my leasing colo space
alone is sufficient to met, again establishing jurisdiction for state
corporate taxation purposes.
What _exactly_ is meant by "legal presence", is it mere jurisdiction
of incorporation or is it more substantive, encompassing all
jurisdictions with personal jurisdiction over the entity?
What _exactly_ is the purpose of any qualifier other than those which
establish the personal jurisdiction over the entity?
Why is a pile o' kit (or eyeballs) a better tool to "weed out bad
actors" than personal jurisdiction?
ARIN exercises NSF-delegated rulemaking, not adjudication, authority.
More information about the ARIN-PPML