> On Sep 7, 2021, at 10:49 , Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Elvis > > I have the same view as you do. > Despite this undertanding (and maybe the Board too - and correct me if I > don't reproduce it accuratelly) I refuse the view that "PDP is a concession > of the Board to the Community" and - this is what makes it even more > controvertial - that 'this does not void ICP-2" due to historical reasons or > whatever justification.
ICP-2 has no relevance once an RIR is accredited. It is a document defining the process for accrediting a new RIR and it only governs ICANN’s process for doing so. If ICANN is replaced and the IANA role is granted to some other institution, ICP-2 would entirely cease to be relevant unless somehow adopted or imposed upon the new organization performing the IANA function. This continued citation of ICP-2 as more than it is doesn’t make it so. It remains a document governing a particular ICANN process and nothing more. > They are entiteled to their opinion but I do not believe that corrensponds to > practical realitty. Then your “practical reality” is divorced from actual reality, which doesn’t really come as a surprise to me. > I sincerelly hope that not only ARIN Board by any other RIR Board never void > the bottom-up process and respect the ultimate power of community to choose > how policies will be, not the Board unilaterally at their will. There’s a whole lot of grey between the black and white extremes you describe above. The reality is well inside of that grey area and neither of your extremes represents reality. In every region (except possibly RIPE), the board has the ultimate authority and control over the policies. In every region, the board is elected by the membership. In every region, while the board has ultimate authority, there is a PDP which to varying degrees provides input into how the board manages the policies, but ultimately, (with the possible exception of RIPE as I have not reviewed their precise process), the board must ratify all policy proposals prior to implementation. > Obviouslly this doesn't confuse with the prerrogative of the RIR Board to > care about the organization protection and legal protection and I support > that including the prerrogative of the Boards to ractify proposals that > reached consensus. What about the prerogative of boards to not ratify harmful proposals which reached consensus? If they can’t choose not to ratify, then it’s not a prerogative, it’s a rubber stamp. I believe that on RPD, you were one of the people arguing that the board must ratify the “board prerogatives” proposal despite it being harmful to the organization and an end-run on the process of updating the bylaws which is where most of the intended policy belonged. Owen _______________________________________________ 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.
