That’s an awful lot of assumptions and at least one erroneous statement.
IP addresses have been issued to individuals and organizations as long as there has been an internet and longer than there have been RIRs.
Contrary to popular belief, ARIN does have some individual accounts and has issued resources to individuals. (For example, my ARIN IPv6 assignment). This is admittedly the result of a set of pre-ARIN IPv4 assignments intersecting with IPv6 policy providing for easy IPv6 assignments to existing holders of IPv4 resources, but it does exist.
I see no reason we should continue to block new individual resource allocations. While I would share your lack of faith in the courts if we were faced with this going to court in Tanzania, I’m quite confident in ARIN’s ability to educate US courts on the matter as needed. They have a pretty good track record of just that over the years.
Owen
It's not a good policy. If individuals want to become members of an RIR, that is fine.
But when it comes to Internet Number Resources which we have seen some claim to be properties or a commodity, this will create a precedent where persons claim IP addresses as personal property or part of their estate or assets. They will then advance into courts to make claims and the judges who do not have an idea how the RIR system works will defend their property rights.
Scott -
I think the intent is to suggest that the community first focus on the merits of the policy ahead the costs. This does not mean cost is never a consideration, but at this juncture - this draft policy is brand new and only received an early staff and legal because
of its legal implications - the questions to the community revolve around “is this good policy or not."
Hope that helps -
Doug
I wholeheartedly disagree. If the benefits of the policy change don’t exceed the costs, it’s not good policy. I’m not convinced we haven’t already wasted more of our collective time discussing this
policy than will ever be saved by the small number of individuals who’d benefit from it (those who can’t easily apply as sole proprietors).
-Scott
Xavier -
Appreciate the feedback and question. When considering policy, it’s encouraged to consider the policy exclusively on the merits and not on cost. If it’s good policy, it should be implemented and if not, it should be abandoned. This keeps us focused on whether
policy is sound or not. A sound policy can be expensive, and an unsound one can be cheap.
Hope that helps, though I know it doesn’t directly answer your question - we’d love to get your feedback on your views on what we should do with the policy.
Thanks!
Doug
--
Douglas J. Camin
ARIN Advisory Council
My feedback on this policy depends on what the "implementation cost" (referenced in the last paragraph of the Legal Review section) will be. Making it easier to access resources is probably worth
$10,000 but is probably not worth $250,000, IMO. Do we have a ballpark estimate?
Thank you,
Xavier Clark
On Thursday, July 10th, 2025 at 7:27 PM, Elizabeth Goodson < [email protected]> wrote:
Hello PPML,
I'm shepherding this policy along with Doug Camin. We're seeking direction from the community as to how the AC should proceed with this policy. There was robust conversation on PPML in late May and early June, which tapered off quickly after the ARIN Staff
and Legal analysis was published.
Should we
- abandon this policy,
- accept this policy as written, or
- continue to revise this policy?
We appreciate your feedback.
Thanks,
Liz Goodson
_______________________________________________
ARIN-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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
|
