[arin-ppml] What if we adopt policy that might negatively affect the RIRs organizationally

TJ trejrco at gmail.com
Tue Nov 18 18:37:10 EST 2008

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:sleibrand at internap.com]
>TJ wrote:
>> When the community is making a policy decision, is protecting the
>> future of the organizational RIR structure - as the sole basis for a
>> policy, or a relevant factor thereof - in the community's best
>> interest?  Not saying it isn't a valid question, and certainly not
>> wishing ill for the
>> organization(s) in question ... just asking - is that a valid
>> justification to influence a policy decision?
>> While I am at it - is the inverse possible?
>> Procedurally, what would happen if (worst case) the ARIN community
>> attempted to adopt a policy demolishing [past|present|future] policy /
>> policy creation capability?
>Yes, it would be possible for ARIN to adopt policy, or take other actions,
>that made ARIN, the organization, irrelevant.  We've discussed such a
>possibility in the Advisory Council, and with certain Board members.  My
>recollection of the conclusion was something like this:
>If a policy is in the best interests of the community, and for ARIN's
>mission, but would be detrimental to ARIN the organization, the community
>and the AC could still choose to move the policy forward.  The Board would
>look very long and hard at it, to make sure it really is the best way
>forward, but if they decide it is, they could adopt the policy (and/or take
>other related non-policy action) to further ARIN's mission, even if it were
>detrimental to ARIN the organization.
>To put it another way, our job, as the community (and the AC's job, as your
>elected representatives) is to put forward the best policy we can, mostly
>independent of organizational or legal considerations.  It's the Board's
>to take those other considerations into account when deciding whether to
>ratify the policy proposal.

Thanks, that makes sense ... 
Let me rephrase what I meant my first question to be, i.e. - 
	Can the continuance of the organization be used as a supporting
statement for some given policy?
	Is that supporting statement alone enough to justify a policy being
created / adopted?

And, is there a different answer to these if we are talking about "what the
community can vote for" vs "what the AC can/would decide" vs "what the board
would accept/approve/adopt/take action on" ... ?

>P.S. I haven't checked my statements above with anyone else, so they're
>my own statements and subject to correction/clarification by others.

Again, thanks!

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list