[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-region Requestors - Revised
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Sep 26 09:17:31 EDT 2013
On 9/25/13 17:15 , William Herrin 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?
>>> 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
> 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.
Please help me understand where you are reading this in the staff and
legal assessment? That is not how I'm reading it. I mostly see
concerns regarding the "plurality" standard.
I concede these issues, but I need to better understand the communities
preferred direction on this issue, "plurality", a flat percentage, say
like 20%, or eliminating any regional justification constraint at all.
This will be a major question at the PPM.
Also, John said "corporate counsel did review the policy proposal ...
and found the proposed policy can be adopted without creating serious
> 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.
Would you prefer the "legal presence" language used previously? There
were questions about what was intended by "legal presence". So, I tried
to clarify this in plain language. Is there other text that would
clarify this intent?
David Farmer Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
More information about the ARIN-PPML