US CODE: Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2.

[Karl Auerbach]

> > ARIN, by virtue of its granting authority, could, if it chose to do so,
> > impose a condition upon all grantees that they avoid arbitrary or
> > capricious treatment of other grantees.
> 
> And how would one define arbitrary or capricious?  Some would say that not
> accepting /20s is neither, but rather is saving one's own routers.

That's a very legitimate reason; it is certainly seems neither arbitrary
nor capricious, at least not at first glance.

However, since the incremental cost of carrying a route is the same
whether the prefix is /8 or /24, an ISP may have to have some policy other
than mere prefix size for deciding which routes to carry and which to not
carry.

But that's an issue for the ISPs and whether they want to risk being
called to task for being descriminatory.  (Discrimination per se isn't
illegal, but it does tend to be a source of questions.)

What is an issue for ARIN is this:

Suppose someone goes through all the necessary hoops and gets an ARIN
assigned block.

And assume further that the grantee discovers that because of some ISP's
policy that the grantee can't make use of the block in the way intend.

Is ARIN willing to take back the block and refund the fee paid?

		--karl--