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

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

On 9/25/13 5:07 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> ...
>> > I repeat, the determination of nexus for a variety of ordinary
>> > business purposes, unrelated to addresses and routing, is already well
>> > established in existing law, and _this_isn't_allocation_policy_.
>> > 
>> > Perhaps we could have corporate counsel offer a 5m brief on personal
>> > and subject matter jurisdiction.
> To be clear, corporate counsel did review the policy proposal (the legal
> assessment follows the revised policy text) and found the proposed policy
> can be adopted without creating serious legal risk.  Whether it produces
> a desirable outcome for the determination of the community, but it does
> not pose a legal problem if adopted.

Clarity is good.

The assertion for -6 is that some extraordinary act by the resource
allocator is necessary to support some unrelated goal, viz, a nexus
sufficient to support personal jurisdiction, and, as an inseparable
collateral, personal jurisdiction is, per -6, a necessary resource
allocation criteria.

My observation is that existing law is sufficient to determine
personal jurisdiction, and, ab initio (1973), jurisdiction was not
relevant to resource allocation or utilization.

The liability of the resource allocator (ARIN) was never an issue.

To restate, for the benefit of -6 evangelicals, corporate counsel
_could_ offer a 5m brief on personal and subject matter jurisdiction
to offer that the jurisdictional determination issue was solved long
before -6 was offered. Another source of authority can be found to
offer that -6 adds a rule to the resource allocation that does not
originate from the original delegating agency (ARPA/DARPA/NSF).

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon