[arin-ppml] ARIN 2019-13

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Wed Oct 16 20:32:05 EDT 2019

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.

Bill Herrin

William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191016/f713f1ee/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list