[arin-ppml] distributing resources for individuals

[Preston Ursini]

Remove the barrier for legitimate networks operated by individuals, the door shouldn’t be open for anyone, it needs to remain in place for legitimate network operators that can justify the needs for the assets, whether they be for an individual or corporation.

The other requirements for numbering assets should otherwise remain the same in relation to this proposed policy change, and validated proof of identification of the individual should also be recorded in some way.

Looking further back at the issue, it is likely easier for people committing fraud to incorporate fake companies through state level secretary of state offices and work under the name of a fake company versus working under the name of a fake individual.  So validating the identity of an individual, whether the application be for a company or individual, is probably a good idea all around.  Name / Date of Birth / Government Issued Identify Document at a minimum.


Preston Ursini
 
 
 


> On Apr 16, 2025, at 3:02 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> Preston - 
> 
> As a point of clarity – when you suggest that “removing this barrier should be given great consideration”, do you mean for removing the barrier for "legitimate networks operated by individuals” (such as you referenced in your explanation), or for removal of the barrier for individuals in general?
> 
> Thanks,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> 
> 
>> On Apr 16, 2025, at 3:51 PM, Preston Ursini via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I know of at least one individual that was working to start a network and was harmed by this.  He is a colocation customer, unincorporated, and uses his network for himself and his place of employment; however the employer did not want to go through the process of obtaining numbering assets from ARIN, and the network is used for his own joint venture.  He simply saw the requirement and did not proceed.
>> 
>> I would ascertain that most legitimate networks operated by individuals is probably relatively small, however our colo somewhat acts as a network incubator giving a place for small networks to grow.  I believe most individuals stopped by this requirement would not reach out to ARIN for change.  If you look at some IXPs you’ll see there are plenty ran under assumed names, with some IXPs themselves being ran by individuals that aren’t incorporated.
>> 
>> If you look into small ISPs and IXPs, and their start, you’ll find that many of them start off as unincorporated sole proprietors.  One thing we’ve found is that these networks are likely to end up leasing IP space from an upstream provider as the barrier to obtaining their own IP Assets may be seen as too high.  In short, this causes providers that could probably get away with IPv6 + NRPM 4.10 IPv4 w/ CG-NAT are being forced to lease IPv4 as these lessors have a financial incentive to show leased IPv4 as a necessity for a new network, thus also possibly having the effect of stalling IPv6 adoption for these small networks that in turn grow into large ones.  Getting them onboarded w/ ARIN and running IPv6 from the start would be a win.  More educational material for IPv6 and numbering planning from ARIN would be great, and lowering and/or removing perceived barriers to entry will do a lot long term to help with this.
>> 
>> In short: We help small networks navigate this, and we have seen the requirement for a business license / assumed name / etc act as a barrier to entry for small networks, and I believe even for small IXPs, and may have a side effect of causing a barrier to IPv6 adoption for small networks.
>> 
>> I believe the notion of removing this barrier should be given great consideration.
>> 
>> Preston Ursini
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20250416/218afb07/attachment.htm>