[arin-ppml] Territorialize the Internet (Was: Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors)

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Tue Jun 25 21:33:31 EDT 2013


With respect ...

On 6/25/13 4:34 PM, David Farmer wrote:
> So, the Internet can't ignore nation-states any more than
> nation-states can ignore the Internet.

I disagree. I don't think anyone really recognizes (the antithesis of
"ignore") the jurisdictional claims of Reserves, Native Corporations,
and Reservations, or for that matter, the physical boundaries between
each of the Central American states, and I spent a lot time chatting
with a $telco about which side of the US/CA boundary I was on last
summer traveling within 100km of the that jurisdictional demark.
Roaming charges for an entire summer noodling along the boarder with
an autistic child who loves Disney on youtube on a handset is a bitch.

However compelling a state's claim may be offered as, it isn't
necessarily an accurate mapping of an end point associated device to a
point interior to its territorial claims.

> How do we find DETENTE between the worlds of the Internet and of
> nation-states?  Is requiring accurate documentation in the registry of
> what jurisdiction addresses are use in a reasonable start to such
> detente?

Not our problem.

> I don't think it is practical to limit where addresses are used, but I
> don't think it is unreasonable to require that where they are used be
> documented.  A basic requirement like that serve several needs, it
> help law enforcement determine proper jurisdiction, but similarly
> would aid in resolution of civil disputes, like determining proper
> jurisdiction for cease and desist orders, help meet content
> distribution limitations within contracts, etc...

The proposal goes beyond a possibly correct offer of jurisdiction of
usage, it requires ARIN staff to engage in more than rule making, but
in actual adjudication of the veracity of the offers.

Also, a nit, but "law enforcement" does not "determine proper
jurisdiction", that is a function of the courts. Law enforcement
simply argues that it has jurisdiction under one or more theories.

Also, tax liability and employee/vendor choice of jurisdiction is
slightly more certain an application of jurisdictional self-awareness
than acting on cease and desist orders.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list