Hello
On 15/08/2024 13:43, John Curran wrote:
<clip>
Fernando -
I am having trouble following you and believe we may have moved into
two (or three) separate topics. If you are asking whether or not I
believe an RIR governing body can be elected by its membership (rather
than some larger group called the “community”), then the answer to
that is certainly yes.
I am by no means referring to ARIN Board or any RIR Board which is the
governing body and this one I fully agree has to be chosen only by
membership. I am indeed referring to region’s policy development process
for number resource management policies.
<clip´>
If you are referring specifically to a region’s policy development
process for number resource management policies, then the requirements
are quite clear.
Per ICP-2 -
/3) Bottom-up self-governance structure for setting local policies/
/
/
/The new RIR needs to have and to clearly document defined
procedures for the development of resource management policies
which may be implemented regionally, as well as those that may be
recommended to the Address Council for consideration as global
policies. These procedures must be open and transparent, be
accessible to all interested parties, and ensure fair
representation of all constituencies within the region./
/
/
/These procedures should include holding at least one annual
policy development meeting that is open and accessible to all
interested parties./
/
/
/In addition to public meetings, the new RIR needs to maintain
public archived mailing lists to discuss policy development./
/
/
/Further, the new RIR should have the capability to undertake its
responsibility to host an Address Council General Assembly
Meeting, as described in section 5 of the ASO MoU./
All interested parties must be must have access to a process which is
open and transparent and ensures fair representation of all
constituencies within the region.
There is nothing that precludes or constrains an RIR from having
involvement of their governing board, an advisory council, or any
other body in those processes (and in fact, it recognizes that some
policies will explicitly have another body - the Address Council) so
long as it does not adversely impact the open/transoparent/accessible
nature of the process.
Here's where we differ. You may consider "be accessible to all
interested parties" as simply giving community voice to participate, if
I understand it correctly, but I consider it having community as
decision makers of the process, by having the pen on their hands and by
being able to participate on the decision without having to be chosen by
membership only. When I say unbalanced in ARIN current structure is
because the ultimate decisions are all with the membership represented
by the Board and by the AC. Not even the pen in the authors hand after
the proposal is accepted as a draft is allowed. I personally don't
consider it fully accessible and balanced.
I agree about all concerns related to the fiduciary duty membership
represented by the Board has with the organization and also fully
understand eventual confusions by authors who have little or no
experience when presenting a proposal, but above that what matters more
is to have a real and equalized participation of all interested parties
which includes community people being able to be not only elected by
also chosen by community. There are enough mechanisms to counterweight
eventual mistakes and abuses from any stakesholder in this process.
Number resource management policies affect both membership and community.
Best regards
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.
