[arin-ppml] IP Address Policy
dogwallah at gmail.com
Thu Aug 9 09:50:34 EDT 2012
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com
> I appreciate constructive comments. It certainly is good that ARIN
> tries to listen to the Internet community as that is who they serve.
> However they do this voluntarily
I think they are mandated to do this by the By-Laws actually.
> and the community does not have any real legal vote
correct, policy decisions are reached by consensus, not by vote of members.
> Hi again,. The fact that the CEO & Board of Directors tries to listen to
> the community is of course positive but they have absolutely no legal
> requirement to do so.
I think they are legally obligated to follow their by-laws.
> They are a US corporation of whatever flavor and as such are actually
> bound by the corporate laws of the United States.
certainly the state of VA.
> The CEO and board have a fiduciary responsibility just like any
> corporation. It is their duty to honor that responsibility or they should
> not hold office.
yes, and what you are asking is that they violate their responsibility in
this case so you don't have to renumber.
> If there are policies that are contrary to their mission they have a
> fiduciary responsibility to either change or remove the policy or they need
> to change the mission they were chartered under.
The mission seems to me to allocate/assign according to community set
policy, so how can a consensus-made policy be contrary to this mission?
> I’m glad they exist and I have no beef with them as long as they do what
> they are chartered to do.
> ** **
> It is pretty clear to me that they are doing the opposite of their mission
> in this instance.
Well here we differ. It is my opinion that they are actually fulfilling
their mission by adhering to the policy (which of course can be changed).
> It does not destroy any trust if they do what they are chartered to do.
Which is to follow policy set by the community. If they act in a way that
violates that policy, then they destroy the trust they have built over a
very long time.
> They sometimes make decisions that are not shared with the community
Of course, these decisions are made under NDAs. We (the community) do not
get to see the details of every request, nor would you want us to see those
> and which may be at odds with this community, but as long as they are
> following their charter then it is their right and responsibility to do
> so. In this case there is a policy which I believe is contrary to their
> mission and they should act accordingly which is their right and
> responsibility as well. I don’t know why you would think “He rightly can”
> if it is contrary to his mission. Why would you want him to do things
> contrary to his mission? Make no sense.
To be clear, here is the exchange:
> You cannot use this community as your reason why you won’t fully fulfill
> your mission and your fiduciary responsibility as President & CEO.
He rightly can IMHO.
Perhaps I wasn't strong enough in my statement. It is my opinion that
staff MUST use the community based policies to make decisions.
IMHO staff are carrying out their mission. You think they are acting in
opposition to the mission.
> ** **
> Upstream does not meet our competitive needs.
Everybody is in this particular boat. As we have seen from others, they
have had to go thru this process as well.
> If this community does not decide to change this policy then the courts
> eventually will.
That remains to be seen.
> Maybe my case will be used by some smart attorney somewhere to do just
> that. Hopefully it won’t come to that as I hope reasonable ness prevails
We can agree on reasonableness as a useful way forward!
The question is, who decides what is reasonable!?
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML