North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: ARIN?
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:[email protected]>[email protected] 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
|