Re: ARIN?

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer () mhsc com>]

At 06:51 PM 11/8/98 -0500, Kim Hubbard wrote:
> > At 06:53 AM 11/6/98 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >
> > > Why should ARIN be able to put someone's business model into the trash can
> > > because of technical complience issues?
> >
> > The same way that Auto Insurance companies can revoke your license in
> > California. They simply revoke you insurance policy after you gather 3
> > point agaisnt you driving record. According to CA-DMV, you license
> > immediately becomes suspended for lack of insurance. Notice that the legal
> > suspension limit is more than 6 points. However, the over-arching
> > requirement is liability insurance. Thus, placing the control with the
> > insurance companies (hell, I never said I *liked* living here).
> >
> > ARIN seems to be operating on a similar principle as the DMV.
>
> I don't recall ARIN ever revoking or suspending addresses.  I'd be
> interested in any examples where ARIN has done this or are you just
> making assumptions here?  

I was speaking of the suspension of a business license by not allowing IP
assignments. The requirement to present a business plan is the issue here.
I was also not making any accusations, I was answering Karl's question. I
was trying to answer how the requirements of one agency pre-empts
another's, more liberal, requirements. In this case, how the more
restrictive requirements, of ARIN IP allocations, pre-empts the business
requirements of various incorporation regulations. Some of this may
actuially be improper, as in the case of the DMV vs the Auto-insurance
carriers, where the carrier has a stricter standard than is maintained by
the regulatory agency. Unfortunately, it is not illegal, yet. In the
DMV/Insurance case, there is actually grounds within public liability
statutes. It still doesn't condone the stricter standards of the Insurance
carriers, IMHO.

ARIN, is facing a similar issue, on murkier grounds. This was my only point
to this, my answer to Karl. Yes, I believe it is improper. No private
company should be allowed to pre-empt *any* regulatory agency, with
stricter standards. Were ARIN to be a regulatory agency then the argument
becomes one of jurisdiction. Since it is not, then ARIN has less legal
footing on which to base this policy, IMHO.

___________________________________________________ 
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993) 
e-mail: <mailto:rmeyer () mhsc com>rmeyer () mhsc com
Internet phone: hawk.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: <http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer>www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: <http://www.mhsc.com/>www.mhsc.com/
___________________________________________ 
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
                -- Marvin Minsky