On 19 Sep 2022, at 12:29 PM, William Herrin 
<b...@herrin.us<mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 AM Tom Beecher 
<beec...@beecher.cc<mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:
A bit of an exaggeration there. The RSA says that you are bound
by all current and future policies that come from the Policy Development
Process. The PDP is open to everyone except ARIN Trustees or Staff.
So by definition, ARIN could not unilaterally decide to change a policy
on how addresses were used.

The board of trustees can change the policy development process in
arbitrary ways at any time.

Presently correct.  The ARIN Policy Development Process is an adopted document 
of the ARIN Board,
and while the practice has been to consult with the community before making 
changes (such as the
consultation open presently - 
https://www.arin.net/announcements/20220906-consultopen/) nothing
presently would prevent the Board from changing the PDP absent such a community 
consultation...

The same could have been said for ARIN's RSA at one point, but given the high 
stability the Board
opted to change that so require a membership vote to change the terms and 
conditions for existing
RSA holders (outside of changes necessary to conform with changes to prevailing 
law.). It’s quite
possible that we’ll get to that same level of stability with the PDP at some 
point, but presently the
member-elected Board is the one that holds the authority over the policy 
development process.

(I’ll note, as an aside, that making changes to the PDP also subject to member 
ratification really
doesn’t change the status quo for legacy resource holders if opt not to become 
members…)

They have done so more than once since ARIN's inception.

The ARIN PDP has indeed been changed multiple times, but I’d disagree with the 
characterization
that you suggest (that such changes were “arbitrary”) given that the community 
was informed in
advance each time with the reasoning behind the changes and an opportunity to 
provide feedback.

Moreover, in the current process the board has
unilateral authority to reject or adjust proposals which come out of
the process before adoption.

Not quite correct - the ARIN Board presently has the ability to adopt, reject 
or remand” policies
that come out of the process - it cannot “adjust” such policies (although to 
the same effect, it has
authority under the present PDP to initiate emergency policy or suspend 
existing policy for similar
reason.)

As there is presently a consultation open, feel free to provide feedback on how 
you’d like the PDP
to operate, powers of the Board therein, and change process for PDP - the 
consultation is open to
all, as noted earlier.

And lest you forget, the current process
starts with the advisory council who can originate and exercise
complete control over the text of policy proposals.

That is correct, but then again, the ARIN AC has to ultimately end up with 
policies that are fair,
technically sound, and supported by the community before they can recommend 
them to the
ARIN Board for adoption.

So structurally, ARIN and its officials can indeed unilaterally decide
to change a policy on how addresses are used. They don't currently.
But nothing in the law or the contract prevents it.

See above - ARIN’s Board is actually more tightly constrained when it comes to 
its ability to arbitrarily
set policy then you suggest, but again the current PDP is presently up under 
community consultation
if you’d like it to operate differently.

To a point I do. But I have yet to hear an argument from a
legacy allocation holder that didn't boil to "I want to have
the flexibility to do things with this space that I wouldn't have
if I had gotten it assigned post RIR. I don't know what those
things might be, and I don't care if others don't get to do those things too."

For what it's worth, in pursuing equalization I'd rather see the
contractees' rights liberalized than my own rights restricted.

That’s already occurred several times, as the merging of the LRSA and RSA into 
a single agreement
resulted in clearer and more liberal language that was sought by LRSA customers 
becoming standard
for all customers.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



Reply via email to