[arin-ppml] ARIN-2025-4: Resource Issuance to Natural Persons -- Request for Feedback

[David Conrad]

Bill,

As is often the case in these sorts of discussions, we appear to be talking past each other.

My summary:

I’ve argued that the ARIN has inappropriately created a restriction on who may make use of the monopoly service provided by ARIN. You appear to be arguing that that may be true(?) but that I have to demonstrate someone has been harmed by that restriction (put in place, according to ARIN’s CEO so that registrants are aware that obtaining resources is “an inherently public activity”) for that restriction to be removed.

You are putting the burden of proof on me (and others who do not think the restriction should exist) for removing a restriction put in place contrary to the bottom up process you yourself assert is important to ARIN’s legitimacy. To do so, one would presumably somehow have to (a) identify everyone who was refused resources as an individual requester and survey those individuals as to why they didn’t make use of governmental processes to address ARIN’s restriction; and (b) identify every individual who didn’t bother applying for resources when they determined they needed some sort of governmental approval to apply for resources. I presume if sufficient cases were documented, then (perhaps) the restriction could be removed. This seems backwards to me. Given all individuals in region are required to make use of ARIN’s service if they desire Internet resources, the burden of proof should be on those who believe not allowing natural persons to obtain resources is desirable or necessary.

To date, there have been examples from the past, concerns about potential future changes to law/regulations, and observation that restrictions against natural persons obtaining resources do not exist in a majority of RIRs, all discounted, and unanswered questions about why the restriction is necessary. 

As it seems continued discussion is unlikely to change positions, I’ll desist.

Regards,
-drc

> On Jul 14, 2025, at 5:28 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 3:42 PM David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>> the larger question is given ARIN is a geographic monopoly (or, if
>> you don’t like the “m”-word, does not overlap service area with any
>> other RIR) thereby impacting _all_ potential Internet numbers
>> resource consumers in the arbitrarily defined “North American"
>> region, was such a restriction justified and approved as a region-wide
>> policy rather than by organizational fiat?
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> That is why, as one member of the Advisory Council, I voted to bring
> the natural persons proposal forward to a draft policy.
> 
> 1. I believe that _WHO_ ARIN serves is a question for the community,
> not for ARIN staff. ARIN has been around for a quarter century and has
> by necessity made some choices along the way. ARIN's legitimacy as a
> bottom-up organization is improved if its handling of natural persons
> as registrants undergoes robust debate by the general community.
> 
> 2. I believe that _WHO_ is qualified for how many IP addresses is the
> fundamental question for number policy, making this the appropriate
> venue for its consideration (as opposed to the ACSP suggestion
> process).
> 
> Now we have a draft policy on the table. You can stop fighting that
> battle: you won.
> 
> The next step is: demonstrate that ARIN's existing solution is
> insufficient to meet the need. In light of ARIN staff saying, "Whoa,
> this draft is a big problem," I'd like to see somewhere in ARIN's
> region that ARIN's preferred solution just doesn't work and I'd like
> to learn why not. Specifics. Not generalities.
> 
> 
>> As mentioned previously, historically at least (and at 3 other RIRs),
>> the RIR’s were tasked with allocating resources to those in region
>> who justified the operational need for those resources, not only to
>> those who also had some form of governmental registration/approval.
> 
> Historically speaking:
> 
> The 1993 InterNIC didn't care. You wrote something on a form and they
> only checked anything if you were asking for a lot of IP addresses.
> [source: my interaction]
> 
> The 1996 InterNIC still didn't much care. [source: my interaction]
> 
> The 2008 ARIN didn't want to register natural persons but could be
> talked into it if you were persistent. [source: my interaction]
> 
> The 2012 ARIN didn't accept natural persons or sole proprietorships
> that did not have associated government paperwork such as a fictitious
> name registration [source: second hand]
> 
> The 2023 ARIN accepted sole proprietorships where claimed with no more
> paperwork than required by the registrant's jurisdiction, often none.
> [source: my interaction]
> 
> Today's ARIN still accepts sole proprietorships where the claim aligns
> with the registrant's jurisdictional requirements. Often this requires
> no more than adding the words "sole proprietorship" after your legal
> name. [source: staff]
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 322 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20250715/93e6076f/attachment.sig>