On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:59 AM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > must > provide proof that they (1) are an active business entity legally > operating within the ARIN service region
Howdy, Speaking for myself, this is unacceptable. I am adamantly, totally, 100% against this, in concept and execution. This kind of restriction on international commerce is usually reserved for national security issues. Foreign interests own ARIN region infrastructure and do business with ARIN region customers all the time, without registering themselves with the government. Just as ARIN-region businesses do in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. Until there's a need for employees in a country, it's not generally necessary and often inappropriate to incorporate there. I think ARIN should continue to follow the same ordinary business practice everyone else does when it comes to the legal status of its registrants: as long as there's a contactable legal existence somewhere (and it's incumbent on the registrant to prove it) they should pass muster as an organization capable of requesting resources. >, and (2) are operating a > network located within the ARIN service region. In addition to meeting > all other applicable policy requirements, a plurality of new resources "Plurality" is a non-starter for me. You really want to do this, pick a percent. The reasons have all been stated before, both in the previous discussion, the staff comments and the legal assessment. In context, plurality is a sloppy, hard to pin down concept that makes management and analysis needlessly hard. > As reported at the last meeting in Barbados, ARIN staff is having > difficulty verifying organizations out-of-region. In many of the cases, > particularly in VPS (Virtual Private Service), the only information > received on these organizations by ARIN is a customer name and IP > address. This information cannot be properly verified by ARIN. Accuracy > of registration data is critical to not only law enforcement, but the > greater ARIN community as it relates to abuse contact and complaints. In > fact, most issues facing law enforcement are also shared by legitimate > companies attempting, for instance, to identify an organization that has > hijacked their IP address space. Do I correctly read the expectation that the verification process ARIN would apply to its direct registrants is expected to be adopted down stream by service providers as they assign addresses to their customers? What a godawful mess that would make! If not, then how exactly does the draft policy address the problem noted above? I don't say this often, but for all of the reasons above I respectfully encourage the AC to abandon this proposal. The issues raised by our law enforcement colleagues are legitimate, but this approach to solving them is not credible. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
