[arin-ppml] ARIN 2019-13

[Chris Woodfield]

One could argue that the enforceability of that revocation alone could be problematic if the non-domestic entity is able to get a local injunction in their home country against it. It is indeed questionable as to whether or not *that* injunction would be enforceable in the United States, but there’s always the risk of ARIN representatives being held liable should they travel to the issuing country. And don’t forget, ARIN staff, board, and AC members regularly travel to quite a number of foreign countries on official business (I’m typing this from RIPE79 in Rotterdam, for example…), so this risk may not be as theoretical as one would assume.

-C

> 
> 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/
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.