On 9/25/13 17:15 , William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sep 25, 2013, at 11:33 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Foreign interests that own ARIN region infrastructure and do business in
the ARIN region are either legally operating within the ARIN service region,
or, they are violating the law by doing so, so I am not sure what it is that
you find objectionable.
For example, a German company operating in Virginia that has filed all
of the necessary paperwork, has the proper permits and licenses, etc.
would qualify under the above provision.
Hi Owen,
What permits, licenses or other government paperwork would a German
company need to own a few routers in Ashburn, buy telco DSL lines on
behalf of lata 236 customers and provide Internet access 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.
If they aren't operating in the region, why should they be able to receive
resources from ARIN instead of having to get them from an RIR that serves
someplace that they do operate?
Operating legally in a region != has a government registered legal
presence in the region
ARIN is not qualified to assess the former and would have a very
difficult time doing so. Staff and counsel made this point in the
analysis of the proposal.
Please help me understand where you are reading this in the staff and
legal assessment? That is not how I'm reading it. I mostly see
concerns regarding the "plurality" standard.
I concede these issues, but I need to better understand the communities
preferred direction on this issue, "plurality", a flat percentage, say
like 20%, or eliminating any regional justification constraint at all.
This will be a major question at the PPM.
Also, John said "corporate counsel did review the policy proposal ...
and found the proposed policy can be adopted without creating serious
legal risk."
The latter penalizes legitimate organizations for failing to register
with the government in a manner the government itself has not elected
to compel by law, an action far outside ARIN's mission.
Would you prefer the "legal presence" language used previously? There
were questions about what was intended by "legal presence". So, I tried
to clarify this in plain language. Is there other text that would
clarify this intent?
Thanks
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
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.
