[arin-ppml] ARIN 2019-13

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

While someone can hire a professional registered agent in the US, that is 
not the only problem.  This kind of thing happens between states in the US 
all the time.  Most states require anyone doing business in their state to 
have a place in their state to serve process on someone. Thus, the quite 
active professional registered agent company market.

As has been pointed out, if Court is required it takes place in Virginia. 
However when it becomes time to actually force compliance with that 
Virginia judgment, one has to establish that judgment in the non-Virginia 
place which if this passes might be halfway around the world. What the 
assessment is pointing out is that process could be quite messy if they 
are no longer based in the ARIN region. Courts in other parts of the world 
do not care for the USA, and in fact there is a bias against the US. That 
was the risk identified.

I am mixed on this.  While most that keep their numbers under this 
proposed draft will never need to be sued to compliance, that still 
remains a risk. Maybe some kind of an additional signed agreement with 
these parties that if the out of area ARIN party fails to act on ARIN 
action that the resources are automatically revoked without court order 
could be the stick to still allow this proposal to happen.  Actually it 
seems to me like such corner case that will be rarely used such that is it 
worth the effort to do it? Does the proposer advancing this because of 
specific parties who need it?

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, William Herrin wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 4:16 PM Amy Potter <amybpotter at gmail.com> wrote:
>       We received a staff and legal assessment for ARIN 2019-13 ARIN Membership Legal Jurisdiction requirement a bit ago that presented some serious concerns
>       about adopting this policy. Based on these concerns I plan to move to abandon this policy. Just wanted to give the community an opportunity to voice their
>       opinions one last time. 
> 
> 
> Hi Amy,
> 
> It seems to me that the policy proposal has not been developed to the point that it's the best policy it can be. I don't (currently) think it's a good idea but unless
> everybody else feels the same way (don't think it's a good idea) I'd like to see the idea fully developed before making a firm choice to support or oppose it.
> 
>
>       The policy proposal text is included at the end as a refresher.
> 
> Here were the legal assessment comments:
> 
> • There are significant material legal concerns regarding adoption of this policy.
> 
> To date, entities receiving addresses from ARIN have an ARIN region incorporation. This is important, as it has permitted ARIN to send correspondence or make
> legal service in its region to the entities it is servicing. The proposed policy would reverse 21 years of practice and experience and require ARIN accept the
> necessity to potentially serve legal papers via a foreign legal forum and litigate in non-region countries. Such foreign legal forums may be located in some
> of the countries not committed to the rule of law which is prevalent in our region, and before foreign courts or tribunals which are hostile to foreign business
> interest and/or where the legal system may be expensive and unresponsive.  In addition, the capability for ARIN to know its customer will be substantially
> reduced for out of region companies with no in-region domiciled entity.   Considering the legal risks that would result from the proposed policy, counsel has
> serious concerns and would advise against adoption unless it is shown that ARIN has clear and pressing need for adoption to fulfill its mission. 
> 
> 
> This analysis isn't making much sense to me. Perhaps counsel could clarify?
> 
> As I recall, the contract (RSA) demands that the registrant accept legal jurisdiction in Virginia. Does counsel suggest that the contract would change based on this
> policy's adoption or that out-region registrants would be released from the requirement to sign it? If the contract remains unaltered, how would ARIN become subject
> to foreign legal forums?
> 
> This could be perfected with a -business requirement- (not number policy) that ARIN registrants accept legal service within the ARIN region. That's slightly more than
> renting a post office box, but not much. And hiring someone to receive legal service on your organization's behalf is quite commonplace, at least in the United
> States. Certainly a reasonable ask as a part of the proposed policy.
> 
> Some hyperbole going on in the "reverse 21 years" thing since for much of that 21 years ARIN's practice included managing addresses for Africa and the rest of the
> Americas. Somehow it survived...
> 
> Finally, as noted in a prior email, counsel is mistaken: many entities holding ARIN resources are not "incorporated" (to the legal meaning of the word) anywhere, let
> alone in the ARIN region. I'm trying not to be pedantic here but some words have precise legal meanings.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> 
>