[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised

[Owen DeLong]

On Sep 25, 2013, at 3:15 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 2013, at 11:33 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> This kind of restriction on international commerce is usually reserved
>>> for national security issues. Foreign interests own ARIN region
>>> infrastructure and do business with ARIN region customers all the
>>> time, without registering themselves with the government. Just as
>>> ARIN-region businesses do in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Until there's
>>> a need for employees in a country, it's not generally necessary and
>>> often inappropriate to incorporate there.
>> 
>> Foreign interests that own ARIN region infrastructure and do business in
>> the ARIN region are either legally operating within the ARIN service region,
>> or, they are violating the law by doing so, so I am not sure what it is that
>> you find objectionable.
>> 
>> For example, a German company operating in Virginia that has filed all
>> of the necessary paperwork, has the proper permits and licenses, etc.
>> would qualify under the above provision.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> What permits, licenses or other government paperwork would a German
> company need to own a few routers in Ashburn, buy telco DSL lines on
> behalf of lata 236 customers and provide Internet access there?

That would depend on Virginia state law, local ordinances in Ashburn, etc.

It's possible that they don't need anything, in which case, they are legally
operating there without needing any licenses or permits. If that is the case,
they would still meet the test expressed in this policy proposal, so I don't
see why you consider it problematic.

It's possible that they need at least a business license (in which case, that
would be required).

Since I'm not familiar with VA law or Ashburn city ordinances, I can't answer
that question with any certainty.


> 
> 
>>> I think ARIN should continue to follow the same ordinary business
>>> practice everyone else does when it comes to the legal status of its
>>> registrants: as long as there's a contactable legal existence
>>> somewhere (and it's incumbent on the registrant to prove it) they
>>> should pass muster as an organization capable of requesting resources.
>> 
>> If they aren't operating in the region, why should they be able to receive
>> resources from ARIN instead of having to get them from an RIR that serves
>> someplace that they do operate?
> 
> Operating legally in a region != has a government registered legal
> presence in the region
> 

Correct.

However, the policy proposal doesn't state "has a government registered
legal presence in the region". It states "Must provide proof that they (1)
are an active business entity legally operating within the ARIN service
region".

Therefore, the requirement expressed is simply that they are:
	1.	A business entity
	2.	Active
	3.	Operating in the ARIN region
	4.	Not violating the law by operating in the ARIN region

These seem like reasonable requirements to me, so I still don't understand
your problem with it.

> ARIN is not qualified to assess the former and would have a very
> difficult time doing so. Staff and counsel made this point in the
> analysis of the proposal.

I don't see that as a serious issue. As long as the entity provides reasonable
documentation to ARIN, ARIN should be able to issue the resources under
this policy in good faith. If it later turns out that there is an issue, then this policy
enables appropriate action to be taken to reclaim the resources as needed.

> The latter penalizes legitimate organizations for failing to register
> with the government in a manner the government itself has not elected
> to compel by law, an action far outside ARIN's mission.

How? If they aren't required to register, then the policy proposal does not
require them to register.

Owen