In message <CAAAwwbU6WkeWGNwgHy_jNNMLy=nekhzcpu_-r+bftd7jcfb...@mail.gmail.com> Jimmy Hess <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:14 PM Ronald F. Guilmette ><[email protected]> wrote: >> Where I am and where you are, there is really only one single >> entity that has complete responsiblity for both, and it's called the State >> of California government. It isn't always pretty, and there are abudant > >How about.... The internet is private property, with agreed upon >co-ordination at the boundaries of property, and the roads inside >California are not? What about at the border of California, where a >street or highway crosses into another state; does California draw the >lines and issue tickets into the neighboring state; What if the center line >doesn't match up on the part of the road on opposite sides of the border? It's an intersting set of questions, and one that I cannot provide full answers to, in part because I lack the time, and also in part because I lack the knowledge necessary to do so. Some of this is delving into the legal topic of extra-territorality which can be quite complex. It *is* certaintly the case that some laws in some jurisdictions *are* applied extra-territorally, and I, for one, would hope that if a driver with a California license were repeatedly found to have violated the rules of the road in other states, that he or she would have their California driver's license revoked. But that all has to do with -statutes- more that private contracts. In the case of private contracts, I am not persuaded that it would be either entirely improper or entirely impermissible for Avis car rental contracts to include a clause which prohibits one party, the renter, from, say, smoking in *any* rental car, whether it be provided by Avis or Hertz or anybody else, possibly including a penalty of some kind if the said objectional action is in fact engaged in by the (Avis) renter. And I think that this is at least somewhat analogous to what is being proposed here. >There is no role, for example, for a government or anyone else to >come tell ATT, Verizon, Level3, etc, what they are and are not allowed >to put or have in their routing tables I agree that this appears to be the case AT PRESENT. We still do live in the "wild west". The question on the table is whether or not a majority wishes to retain that status quo, or move forward towards an era in which all participants in the ARIN allocation system do in fact have, and pledge to accept, some additional specific responsibility in order to help foster the general welfare and the smooth continued operation of the global Internet. It is clear that few here are at all eager to accept any of this new-fangled resposibility. I personally feel however that it is at least remotely possible that a majority may come around to the view that the new bargain on offer is worth the cost. There are indeed costs, in the form of new responsibilities (specifically, not to engage in hijacking) but there are also benefits in the form of a heightened level of freedom from problematic hijacks generally. It is up to the members to decide if this tradeoff is worth it to their respective organizations. >ARIN Not only has no ability to enforce these agreements; >not being a court of law; the Interconnection agreements >are private, and not really the business of a number registry. I think that we have covered this. ARIN -can- have an AUP if it wishes to do so. And it would be neither novel nor unique if it now adopted one, even after more than two decades of operating without one. Virtually ever other kind of online service alread has a contractual AUP, and one that is enforced not so much by the complex, expensive, and time consuming appeal to the courts and to civil litigation, but just simply by terminating the memberships of those found to have violated the AUP. Clearly, this longstanding mantra and objection, that ARIN "is not the police" misses the mark and is misplaced and irrelevant in this context. Nobody is asking for ARIN to become the police, so all references to criminal enforcement in the context of a discussion of the ARIN AUP, or the present lack thereof, are demonstratably silly. ARIN can have and indeed does have the power, authority, and ability to simply kick people out of this voluntary club, based on whatever rules of conduct ARIN, as a private association, elects to adopt. Is there any real dispute on this point? Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ 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.
