Thanks for the comments John.
On 13/08/2024 13:11, John Curran wrote:
You seem to be under the impression that the both the ARIN AC and the
ARIN Board simply do as they please and exercise “a high level of
power” when it comes to the ARIN Policy Development Process (ARIN
PDP), and nothing could be further from the truth.
No at all, absolutely. I didn't say or mean that. I said the power
exists in these entities and that is as it is, not necessarily they have
been exercising it as they please.
Yes, the ARIN Board of Trustees ultimately approves policy changed to
the number resource policy manual, so there is enormous potential
power in their hands.
However, the reality is that the ARIN PDP charges the Board with very
clear criteria to be used in its evaluation of recommended draft
policies – specifically, that the PDP was properly followed and that
the resulting policy satisfies the principles of required of number
resource policy specified in the PDP. It is extremely rare that the
ARIN Board of Trustees does not ratify policy recommended by the ARIN
AC, and when it does not, it’s generally because it is acting on
behalf of the community to make sure that the policy writeup of
compliance is clear and complete, or that there are not concerns about
adherence to the PDP (such as those raised in petition.)
Nothing wrong with that so far. We are on the same page.
It is true that both the ARIN AC and the Board are elected by the
membership, but at this point membership is open to anyone with as
much a single IP address block or one AS #, so it is rather low
threshold at that.
Furthermore, the actual policy development process itself is open to
input from any/all participants, just you are doing so now by
participating on the arin-ppml mailing list.
True, but my point is about representation and the actors who have each
responsibility. One of the main points of this discussion and suggested
by some is to keep the pen on the hands of the author.
The openness of the PDP for the input of any/all participants is what is
excepted anywhere and that covers part of what ICP-2 says about. Even
with such change (having truly community representatives) there are
other mechanisms to check and validate if the process is being followed
as expected with AC playing their role and ultimately the Board.
Other regions, chairs are elected by community and should they commit
any mistakes or abuses the RIR Board still have the power to not
ractify an approved proposal or in certain cases even to dismiss them.
Having community members in a new structure can be a good start.
See above - ARIN currently has an open policy development p rocess
that takes input from the entire community. If you believe that your
input as a community member wasn’t given fair consideration, then you
can raise this with ARIN AC or the ARIN Board – as with the scenario
you describe in the other regions, the ARIN Board already has the
ability to intervene if the PDP is not properly followed.
I trust that happens in many occasions, but be opened to input may not
be enough sometimes. Having fair representation of all constituencies -
as ICP-2 states - may mean more, as an active representation of all
stakeholders and as we all know, membership differs from community to
certain subjects. I am not suggesting simply the entire AC to start
being elected by community, but as it is now doesn't sound reasonable it
being elected solely by membership either. I compared to similar
scenarios and suggested something different that weight things better
which deserves further thought.
<clip>
It is incumbent upon the author to clearly communicate the problem
with current policy that warrants a change. The community should not
be expected to make changes to number resource policy based on what an
author might be thinking but seemingly cannot communicate. The ARIN
AC actually serves to help the authors with this very process, as the
assigned sheperds are tasking with working with the author to achieve
this clarity.
Well, if the author has the knowledge to do and know well what he/she is
proposing what is the issue with that ? Overall there must be consensus
from community, in order for a proposal to advance, so if the author
makes up something that doesn't make any sense and doesn't follow AC
shepherds advice hardly that proposal will progress anyway. Nothing
stops the AC to keep helping authors in that sense, but decision about
what the text should is should remain with the author.
<clip>
It should be noted that many authors often are unaware of the policy
development process or the requirements for a policy at each stage,
and simply want to “change some text” - we actually don’t work that
way in the ARIN region - the PDP provides a clear and structured
process that can be administrated fairly and provides the same
criteria to all proposals at each phase of the process. It is indeed
more detailed than many folks expect, but such formalism is not a
random occurrence but natural evolution of the PDP baed on lessons
learned from its use in the region over the decades.
Well, I don't get this part. If the author believes any part of the
proposal demands changes based on the discussion what is the problem if
he wants to change it ? If it doesn't work that way now a days it can
start working, just need to be adjusted. As long the PDP is followed I
see no issues with that. Correct me, but I see there may be a fair
amount of concern about folks that may not know well the process, create
some confusion eventually and that may happen. For that there will be
the AC shepherds to advice and guide those who need more assistance
before making any change. I see that as valuable, even if it costs more
time. In other words pays off for keeping the pen in the author's hand
and what that means.
<clip>
Thanks again for the input
Fernando
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________
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.
