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

[Mike Burns]

I support this proposal. 

What about issuing resources to a living trust?
I've seen this done elsewhere.

Regards,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 3:34 PM
To: hostmaster at uneedus.com
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2025-4: Resource Issuance to Natural Persons


> On May 20, 2025, at 2:37 PM, hostmaster at uneedus.com wrote:
> 
> Considering the number of times corporations go into default, by not paying their state fees or otherwise, I think a sole propriator model would be easier on ARIN, as one does not have to pay fees as a natural person to keep the organization going, unlike a lot of corps and LLC's that seem to forget paying those fees each year.

In that regard you are referring to the entity’s own compliance with fees/taxes/laws, so it does not make a substantial difference to ARIN: the responsibility is with that party – natural or otherwise – rather than ARIN. 

> ARIN is still dealing with natural persons in any case, so actually dealing with corporations and LLC's can be more complex.

It would probably be best to wait for the staff and legal review of the policy rather than making generalization about any imputed ARIN workload that might result from the policy change. 

> In the early days, there were some resources given out to individuals, and I was shocked that today's ARIN does not currently allow it.  Remember, there is a need for small networks more than ever. You should not have to form a business in order to have and use network resources.

To be clear, resources were issued  but it is unclear if individuals were “customers" in the usual sense, given the absence of written contract/fees. 

Such number resources were issued by ARIN’s predecessor registry (NSI per InterNIC award, SRI/ISI, etc.) and at the time the clearest defined relationship was between the USG and number registry, so it is not particularly indicative of the implications that result from a number registry serving individuals as customers.  

As for when it changed to be clearly issued to organizations,  I believe InterNIC's network number template (i.e. the form to request a number block from InterNIC registration services) required specification of "the responsible organization” – i.e. the one building the network – as early as 1993. 

Thanks,
/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://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.