Bill > -----Original Message----- > > 1. Permitted use of addresses outregion could subject ARIN to the legal > jurisdiction in the myriad localities where the addresses are used. Dealing > with that could be super expensive and could distract and draw resources > away from ARIN's core function: managing addresses for use in-region.
It's an invalid argument. Out of region usage _already_ occurs, and both staff (JC) and Counsel have said they don't oppose it if the entity has some nexus with our region. The 2014-1 policy includes a threshold for nexus. It is a change of degree not a change of kind. There is nothing in the policy, therefore, that would significantly change jurisdictional exposure. > > 2. ARIN is bound by ICP-2 which is at least nominally contrary to outregion > use of ARIN-managed addresses. Changes or clarifications to > ICP-2 would be desired in order to proceed with an explicit outregion policy > more permissive than, "no." As noted many times before, ICP-2 does not address the usage policies of existing RIRs, it is about creating new RIRs. And it basically just asserts that it would be confusing to create a new RIR that overlapped with existing service regions. _______________________________________________ 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.
