[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2025-4: Resource Issuance to Natural Persons

Tue Jun 3 22:38:20 EDT 2025

Hi Kat,

Thanks for pointing this out. I believe you're referring to
https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/policy/drafts/2021/ARIN_edit_2021_5/? If
so, it appears that still went through the standard PDP and so would potentially
still run afoul of the alleged scope issues if that process were used here.

I guess it might be illustrative to consider how this might be done via the
ACSP. Suppose the ACSP says ARIN should issue resources to natural persons, and
that it passes that process. Now what happens? Is ARIN going to issue resources
to natural persons even if there is no change to the NRPM? The NRPM's use of the
term 'organization' would suggest that this would be improper. Presumably the
community (or AC) would submit a proposal to the PDP, but that proposal would be
just as out of scope as the one we're currently discussing. Or does the fact
that ARIN accepted the ACSP (but has not otherwise made any other changes, as
they can't without violating the NRPM) make the previously out of scope proposal
now in scope?

If we accept the assertion that this Draft Policy is out of scope (which I
don't, and the AC didn't when they voted for it to be a Draft Policy), could we
work around that by just adding language to the NRPM along the lines of
"Issuance to natural persons is subject to ARIN Staff's determination that it is
legally and operationally feasible"? This would remove the NRPM's prohibition on
issuance to natural persons without mandating that ARIN do so, effectively
mooting any alleged scope issues. Then if ARIN Staff determined that it wasn't
feasible, an ACSP could be submitted to dispute/review that.

Ultimately, this is a question of Internet Number Resource policy. ICP-2[1], the
PDP[2], and ARIN's bylaws[3] all say that such questions belong in the PDP.
Although I'm sure you already know this, I'll remind the reader that the ACSP
"is strictly an ARIN administrative process and creates no rights or
expectations for any ARIN Member or third party"[4].

Thanks,
Tyler

[1] "The new RIR needs to have and to clearly document defined procedures for
the development of resource management policies which may be implemented
regionally.... These procedures must be open and transparent, be accessible to
all interested parties, and ensure fair representation of all constituencies
within the region." 
Principle 3
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en

[2] "Changes to Internet Number Resource Policy must be developed via open and
transparent processes that provide a meaningful opportunity for public
participation. All policies must be considered in an open and publicly
accessible forum as part of the adoption process, with open participation for
all who adhere to the guidelines of behavior and decorum." 
Section 1.1
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/

[3] "ARIN... coordinates the development of policies by the community for the
management of Internet Protocol number resources.... ARIN will continue to
utilize an open, transparent multi-stakeholder process for registry policy
development."
Article II, Section 2
https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/bylaws/

[4] https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/process/

On Wed, 2025-06-04 at 01:52 +0000, Hunter, Kathleen wrote:
> 
> Just a clarification on your one point Tyler
> "The staff suggest using the ACSP to propose this (overarching) change, but
> the
> ACSP doesn't have the authority to change the NRPM, which (to my reading)
> would
> be necessary in order to support natural persons."
> The AC has responded to the ACSP process before with changes to text. There
> was a change in the way the fee schedule was handled (assignments vs
> allocations) and the AC followed up by making necessary changes to the NRPM to
> align with business practices.  While the NRPM doesn't handle fees directly,
> it did impact the wording for allocation and assignment. For this "natural
> persons" example, we would have to evaluate the outcome of the ACSP and see
> what changes would be required to better align the NRPM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kat Hunter
> Comcast LIR
> ARIN AC Chair
>  
> From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> on behalf of Tyler O'Meara via
> ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2025 9:17 PM
> To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>; arin-ppml at arin.net <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2025-4: Resource Issuance to
> Natural Persons
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> Thanks (to both you and all the ARIN staff) for working to get the reviews
> done.
> For a change like this, they're obviously crucial to an informed discussion
> here
> on the PPML.
> 
> The staff suggest using the ACSP to propose this (overarching) change, but the
> ACSP doesn't have the authority to change the NRPM, which (to my reading)
> would
> be necessary in order to support natural persons. This would imply a circular
> dependency, where the PDP is insufficient for this change because it "would
> redefine that scope of ARIN’s customer base", but the ACSP is insufficient
> because it lacks the power to actually change the NRPM.
> 
> Separately, I disagree with the assertion that this change is out of scope for
> the PDP due to Section 2.2.2.3. No part of this proposal defines "the specific
> processes by which the Policy Proposal will be implemented by ARIN staff" nor
> does it "define or establish services offered by ARIN". It also trivially
> doesn't have any impact on fees, but I'm doubting ARIN is asserting otherwise.
> The review suggests that this change is out of scope for the PDP because "it
> would redefine that scope of ARIN’s customer base", but that is neither a
> specific process nor specifying which services ARIN must provide.
> 
> If we accept that a change which redefines the scope of ARIN's customer base
> is
> out of scope for the PDP, this would imply that _any_ change to the NRPM which
> either expands or decreases eligibility for resources (and therefore,
> eligibility to be an ARIN customer) would be out of scope for the PDP. Would a
> change to the NRPM which prohibits the allocation of resources to IP lessors
> also be out of scope? It clearly "redefine(s) the scope of ARIN's customer
> base"
> by excluding IP lessors, so the same argument would apply as here.
> 
> Accordingly, I firmly believe that this Draft Policy is in scope for the PDP,
> and given the near universal support it has received thus far, the AC should
> continue to work on improving the text. The Legal analysis (although somewhat
> contradictory with the staff review[1]) was very helpful, but in light of the
> uncertainty of the final text at this stage, was also lacking in specifics. I
> think that more detail (which can naturally only be provided once the policy
> has
> been fleshed out more) will be necessary for the ARIN community to determine
> if
> the tradeoffs for more inclusivity vs the legal and operational complixities
> are
> worth it.
> 
> In light of the issues raised by the Legal analysis, I revoke my support for
> this policy and instead think we should work to improve the text and work to
> gain greater clarity as to the costs of this policy.
> 
> Thanks,
> Tyler
> 
> [1] The legal analysis asserts that "Individuals are also less likely than
> businesses to have assets available to satisfy liabilities to ARIN", but the
> Staff review suggests that they encourage individuals to set up shell business
> entities ("ARIN presently does provide number resources and related services
> to
> individuals...; but ARIN accommodates these requests by directing the
> requester
> to first establish a legally recognized business, such as a sole proprietor,
> DBA, LLC, or corporation.") just to satisfy ARIN's requirement, and these
> shell
> business entities will naturally have no assets (and certainly no more than
> the
> owning individual) with which to satisfy judgements.
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2025-06-04 at 00:39 +0000, John Curran wrote:
> > Folks - 
> > 
> > The (initial)  staff and legal review for Draft Policy ARIN-2025-4 is
> > available online in the Policy section of the ARIN website.
> > 
> > Direct link -
> > <
> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/20
> > 25_4/*staff-and-legal-
> > review__;Iw!!CQl3mcHX2A!Gz0Bm1QAgGxsoPZ6Evfeq2BeQSP01SfTH6MV3HQVf-
> > KzBIBzE8XmgvmmIyLqJ3geuhIxf5clQbKUsrBcGFrQBi6HaiAV$
> > -3-june-2025>
> > 
> > FYI,
> > /John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > John Curran
> > President and CEO
> > American Registry for Internet Numbers
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Gz0Bm1QAgGxsoPZ6Evfeq2BeQSP01SfTH6MV3HQVf-KzBIBzE8XmgvmmIyLqJ3geuhIxf5clQbKUsrBcGFrQBtizwx61$
> 
> > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Gz0Bm1QAgGxsoPZ6Evfeq2BeQSP01SfTH6MV3HQVf-KzBIBzE8XmgvmmIyLqJ3geuhIxf5clQbKUsrBcGFrQBtizwx61$
> 
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.