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

[John Curran]

On Sep 25, 2013, at 11:13 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:

> 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 proponents of 2013-6 provided three reasons for the proposal
<https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN_prop_189_orig.html>
as summarized below: 

1. The rapid depletion of IPv4 space resulting from the present situation.

2. The challenging environment for law enforcement investigations, including the
   opportunity unscrupulous organizations to manipulate the system and acquire 
   large blocks of ARIN IP address space for nefarious purposes.
 
3. The direct contravention of the Regional Internet Registry system resulting 
   from ARIN assigning resources outside the region and implications for the
   current model.

Your assertion that "personal jurisdiction" is the basis for the proposal may
be alluded to by point #2, but it is also possible that this point refers to 
any number of aspects relating to law enforcement, and not simply determination
of jurisdiction. 

Either way, it is not the role of ARIN staff (including its counsel) to argue 
the challenges that others may or may not have with current or proposed address 
policy.  It is our job to note whether the policy is implementable and/or poses 
significant risk to performance of ARIN's mission.  This has been done.

> 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.

You should feel free to explain your views on this matter on the list, including
how it mitigates point #2 above.  Supporting (or arguing against) those views is 
not the role of the ARIN staff, but a task for the rest of the community to take
up as appropriate.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN