[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use

[Tony Hain]

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Jimmy
> Comments inline
> I agree with many of your arguments, especially this one:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > As of now.....  there is really no pool of scarce IPv4  resources to
> > distribute according to local policies...
> > The purpose of having multiple RIRs in the first place, instead of one
> > global GIR    that can  allocate, register, transfer resources in any
> > region,   is greatly diminished.
> 
> > I would suggest that Out of Region use be fully allowed for all
> > resources,  with disclosure of the caveat that  optimal routing might
> > be more limited for out of region usage.
> >
> > The only hard constraint should be that the resource holder must at
> > all times provide and maintain a contact or agent with physical
> > mailing address in one of the countries served by ARIN,  unless,  or
> > until such time as there is a global registry.
> 
> I would note that the current version of "out of region use" allowance
(2015-
> 5) is designed to restrict out of region use far beyond these constraints.
It
> requires companies to meet criteria that are, in effect, a jurisdictional
nexus
> test. This was added to the policy because a) of concerns about gaming
> access to the free pool, a concern that is no longer salient; and b)
objections
> from law enforcement agencies who would like to align number resources
> with jurisdiction.
> 
> Although it might be possible for these provisions to mitigate that kind
of
> opposition, the current policy is a step backwards rather than forwards in
> terms of actually allowing out of region use. I would be interested in
> hearing from community members whether they think the increasingly
> formalized "jurisdictionalization" of the number space fostered by 2015-5
is
> worth whatever gains might be obtained by formally approving out of
> region use for those who qualify
> 
> --MM

It really needs to be taken a step further than that though, in that the
real question is whether the implied alignment with jurisdiction is *ANY*
different than nationally aligned PSTN numbering? If someone believes it is,
they need to be very explicit about why geographic alignment of addresses is
now a good thing, when it has always been fought against in the past
(https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-hain-ipv6-geo-addr-02.txt & others
from the ITU on national alignments).

The entirety of 2015-5 is misguided in that it starts from the assumption
that the resources are ARIN property to begin with, then assumes that the
registrant is engaged in a business activity. As far as I know, ARIN is a
registration facilitator for a set of global resources, and one could argue
that if NASA wanted to use some for communication between here and Mars,
that would still qualify as valid and 'out of region'. The entirety of the
current language needs to  be scrapped, and start from the perspective that
it is simply to clarify that the resources are for global use, and ARIN's
role is simply to be a facilitator within a reasonably local time-zone, and
having local language support. Any language that implies that there is a
limitation to use needs to be removed, or an explanation as to why that
restriction is any different than nationally aligned allocations needs to be
added.

Tony