On Mon, Jul 14, 2025 at 3:42 PM David Conrad <[email protected]> wrote: > the larger question is given ARIN is a geographic monopoly (or, if > you don’t like the “m”-word, does not overlap service area with any > other RIR) thereby impacting _all_ potential Internet numbers > resource consumers in the arbitrarily defined “North American" > region, was such a restriction justified and approved as a region-wide > policy rather than by organizational fiat?
Hi David, That is why, as one member of the Advisory Council, I voted to bring the natural persons proposal forward to a draft policy. 1. I believe that _WHO_ ARIN serves is a question for the community, not for ARIN staff. ARIN has been around for a quarter century and has by necessity made some choices along the way. ARIN's legitimacy as a bottom-up organization is improved if its handling of natural persons as registrants undergoes robust debate by the general community. 2. I believe that _WHO_ is qualified for how many IP addresses is the fundamental question for number policy, making this the appropriate venue for its consideration (as opposed to the ACSP suggestion process). Now we have a draft policy on the table. You can stop fighting that battle: you won. The next step is: demonstrate that ARIN's existing solution is insufficient to meet the need. In light of ARIN staff saying, "Whoa, this draft is a big problem," I'd like to see somewhere in ARIN's region that ARIN's preferred solution just doesn't work and I'd like to learn why not. Specifics. Not generalities. > As mentioned previously, historically at least (and at 3 other RIRs), > the RIR’s were tasked with allocating resources to those in region > who justified the operational need for those resources, not only to > those who also had some form of governmental registration/approval. Historically speaking: The 1993 InterNIC didn't care. You wrote something on a form and they only checked anything if you were asking for a lot of IP addresses. [source: my interaction] The 1996 InterNIC still didn't much care. [source: my interaction] The 2008 ARIN didn't want to register natural persons but could be talked into it if you were persistent. [source: my interaction] The 2012 ARIN didn't accept natural persons or sole proprietorships that did not have associated government paperwork such as a fictitious name registration [source: second hand] The 2023 ARIN accepted sole proprietorships where claimed with no more paperwork than required by the registrant's jurisdiction, often none. [source: my interaction] Today's ARIN still accepts sole proprietorships where the claim aligns with the registrant's jurisdictional requirements. Often this requires no more than adding the words "sole proprietorship" after your legal name. [source: staff] Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ 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.
