Hi
On 15/08/2024 09:15, John Curran wrote:
<clip>
Fernando –
You extract only a portion of ICP-2 that discusses the requirements
for an RIR’s Policy Development Process, and then generalize it
inappropriately.
Here’s the ICP-2 text in full.
"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.”
Note - It does not state that "Having fair representation of all
constituencies - as ICP-2 states - may mean more, as an active
representation of all stakeholders”, nor was that ever intended.
So you don't consider the possibility of having community elected
members - those who make decisions - as fair representation ? You
believe that simply giving community voice is enough ?
The ICP-2 requirement states that _process_ for policy development
must be "be open and transparent, be accessible to all interested
parties, and ensure fair representation of all constituencies within
the region.”
Do you consider that a decision power in the hands of membership and
just hearing what community people has to say but keeping the decision
with a more narrow number of selected people is Ok and accessible to all
interested parties ? Community, on your understanding, is already well
represented by giving them voice only or be candidates (but chosen by
membership) ? Correct me if I misunderstand it.
<clip>
ARIN, again, is quite similar - our ARIN AC and ARIN Board of Trustees
are open to all (save for some enumerated conflicts of interest -
https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/processes/conflicts/)
and that includes having non-members serve on these bodies. If you
believe that the ARIN AC needs more folks who are not ARIN members
upon it, you should encourage such candidates or run yourself as
desired. You seem to presume that the ARIN AC and ARIN Board must be
composed of people from the ARIN membership, but indeed both are open
to any member of the community that wishes to run for election and
meets the basic requirements. The fact that these bodies (Board and
ARIN AC) are elected by the members is not any different than occurs
in other regions - the only difference is the ARIN Board has delegated
primary administration of the policy development process to the ARIN AC.
I think there is an important point to highlight in this example and
which I am basing my points on. I understand the possibility to have
non-members serving on these bodies, but the decision whether or not to
choose them is always and ultimately with the membership. Other examples
as for example other RIRs the choice of who will take some decisions on
the process is partly or fully with the community.
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.
As other on this list have pointed out, the ARIN AC shepherds do try
to work with the author to get the proposal into reasonable shape, and
the author retains the the editors pen in that process. It is only
once it is accepted as a draft policy that the ARIN AC handes
subsequent edits based the input on this list and from the public
policy consultations held at ARIN meetings.
That's exactly what needs to be changed and the author to retain the pen
after the draft policy is accepted.
I understand that maybe is easier for ARIN to deal with this type of
structure, it is less burden having to deal with less people, but in the
other hand it strips community representation as true decision makers in
this process being an author with the pen on his/her hands all the time
to adjust the proposal as they think is better, not the AC shepherd. As
mentioned AC shepherds can continue an important work on advising the
author about the formalities of the process or even what text should fit
better, but ultimately the decision of what goes in the text should
always remain with the author, even if it costs more time to have to
deal with situations where an author is not very skilled, if that is the
concern.
Above all what means more in my view is having freedom for all parts to
do their job with their true original intents, being the authors to
stick with their original ideal, the AC on helping and guiding the
authors and evaluating the progress of a proposal and the ARIN Board in
ratifying or not a proposal - in this case if there is legal damage to
the organization.
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 (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.
