On 9/25/13 5:07 PM, John Curran wrote: >> ... >> > I repeat, the determination of nexus for a variety of ordinary >> > business purposes, unrelated to addresses and routing, is already well >> > established in existing law, and _this_isn't_allocation_policy_. >> > >> > Perhaps we could have corporate counsel offer a 5m brief on personal >> > and subject matter jurisdiction. > To be clear, corporate counsel did review the policy proposal (the legal > assessment follows the revised policy text) and found the proposed policy > can be adopted without creating serious legal risk. Whether it produces > a desirable outcome for the determination of the community, but it does > not pose a legal problem if adopted.
Clarity is good. The assertion for -6 is that some extraordinary act by the resource allocator is necessary to support some unrelated goal, viz, a nexus sufficient to support personal jurisdiction, and, as an inseparable collateral, personal jurisdiction is, per -6, a necessary resource allocation criteria. My observation is that existing law is sufficient to determine personal jurisdiction, and, ab initio (1973), jurisdiction was not relevant to resource allocation or utilization. The liability of the resource allocator (ARIN) was never an issue. To restate, for the benefit of -6 evangelicals, corporate counsel _could_ offer a 5m brief on personal and subject matter jurisdiction to offer that the jurisdictional determination issue was solved long before -6 was offered. Another source of authority can be found to offer that -6 adds a rule to the resource allocation that does not originate from the original delegating agency (ARPA/DARPA/NSF). Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon _______________________________________________ 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.
