On 08/09/2021 17:56, Owen DeLong wrote:
<clip>
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.
That your view and only yours as some others that it seems to be
exclusively from you. But fine, as usual you view.
ICP-2 is not something to be used one off and be trashed right after and
contain principles to be observed an followed not only during the
creation of a RIR, otherwise we, as community would be in a very bad
shape with that new RIR being created, empowered with such critical
functions and their Board afterwards doing whatever they like at the
expense of shared resources and functions that were recognized for them
not just at the moment of their creation but at any point.
If it says there that it must have a bottom-up self-governance structure
for setting local policies, how can you imagine that would be valid only
at the moment of the creation of the RIR ?
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.
RIRs legal prerogatives at not above certain and wider mechanisms the
community have to refuse unilateral and not bottom-up decisions that
concern the community. If that ever happen there are different
mechanisms to overwrite that regardless the legal system where the RIR
is placed. That is the practical reality I was referring to.
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.
That's a narrow view. In practice they don't have. As mentioned there
are mechanisms available to overwrite Board decisions on community
exclusive matters. This doesn't confuse with the prerogative of the
Board to ratify policy proposals prior do implementation.
I am also not referring to emergency policies. Those are fine to exist
for justified reasons but they still are subject to community evaluation
and final say and if the community doesn't want that they shall cease to
exist at some point, despite the most noble and good intention from the
Board which created it may have had.
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.
Not exactly.
What I say is that if the Board is going to deny the ratification of a
proposal that community reached consensus they must give detailed
justification for that specially on how that may be harmful to the RIR.
Ratification process is not for Board members do a second round on
policy evaluation and they may choose to not ratify just because most of
them 'don't like it'. They are not there to like the proposals or not,
but simply to protect the organization. Therefore they may reject
ratification if they are able to justify that may be a harmful thing to
the RIR. I agree that is a very subjective thing, but the main point
that the duty of the Board to provide clear and enough justification for
such event as we know how long and detailed can be a process to reach
consensus on something.
Regards
Fernando
Owen
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
