[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee

[Fernando Frediani]

Hi David

I am not against it has, but it does because the authority given to them 
for that come from this forum (for the revocation part not the fee 
structure).
4.2.1.2 makes it very clear and doesn't go into any operational details 
and this proposal is willing to remove it.

Fernando

On 16/01/2021 20:42, David Farmer wrote:
> The Board has the power to set fees, which includes at least the power 
> to revoke resources for nonpayment. If it did not, the power to set 
> fees would be meaningless.
>
> Thanks
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 5:29 PM Fernando Frediani 
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     John, let's make it simple: The Board has no power to *make and
>     adopt policies* concerning resources allocation without passing in
>     this forum. Look: make policies not just adopt them !
>
>     Yes we all understand it has the ultimate authority to adopt all
>     ARIN's policies, but it *cannot make and adopt any policies by
>     itself*. That is a sole prerogative from this forum to initiate,
>     discuss and agree on it to *then* pass it to them for approval.
>     Therefore Board has no power to determine the conditions for
>     resources to be allocated or revoked. This forum does and why I am
>     of that the current text is fine to remain as it is as it is not
>     causing any trouble and doesn't go into any operational details.
>
>     The text in the proposal doesn't refer to how fees are structured,
>     but only mentions that lack of payment is a reason for revocation
>     (again a sole prerogative of this forum to define not the Board).
>     In other words the authority for ARIN to revoke resources always
>     comes from this forum.
>     As a suggestion to this proposal why not make more clear and
>     something similar to what LACNIC has which mentions that
>     violations to the contract leads to revocation ?
>
>     Fernando
>
>     On 16/01/2021 19:30, John Curran wrote:
>>     On 16 Jan 2021, at 3:39 PM, Fernando Frediani
>>     <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Exactly John, that's why the Board of Trustees or equivalent
>>>     body has to approve policies that advances from this forum, to
>>>     make sure they are in line with the applicable law, operational
>>>     impacts, etc. But the Board has not power to make policies or
>>>     define rules for allocation of revocation.
>>>
>>     Fernando -
>>
>>     That is also incorrect in the ARIN region (“But the Board has not
>>     power to make policies or define rules for allocation of
>>     revocation.”)  The ARIN Board of Trustees has the full authority
>>     of the organization, having been elected by the membership - this
>>     includes the ultimate authority to adopt all of ARIN’s number
>>     resource policies.  In its deep wisdom, the ARIN Board of
>>     Trustees adopted a Policy Development Process that delegates and
>>     constrains its role in the normal course of policy development,
>>     but that does not change the underlying authority to define the
>>     policies by which ARIN operates.
>>>
>>>     More important to highlight is that any policies regarding
>>>     allocation of revocation come exclusively from this forum. If
>>>     this forum defines lack of payment is one of that reasons for
>>>     revocation of resources and Board approves it according to the
>>>     PDP, then the Board is free to adjust the RSA and whatever
>>>     procedures necessary to make it happen.
>>>
>>     Again, that is not the case in the ARIN region, and it might be
>>     best if you refrain from make assertions regarding the
>>     functioning of authority in the ARIN region without further
>>     research.  Note - I am also available at any time if you wish to
>>     discuss specifics of ARIN authority and operation - feel free to
>>     reach out to me to arrange if needed.
>>>
>>>     What I am saying with is that it is in its prerogatives for this
>>>     forum to keep in the policy text that lack of payment is a
>>>     reason for revocation. There is not reason to remove what is in
>>>     there, it will not cause any harm or conflict to whatever the
>>>     Board decides the RSA will be.
>>>
>>     The policy writeup notes "The AC’s understanding is that
>>     community policy should not include language referring to fees,
>>     as such language is already present in the Registration
>>     Services Agreement (RSA)” – this statement is accurate, which
>>     suggests that the proposed change to policy text is well-considered.
>>
>>     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 at arin.net
>     <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>     Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>     https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>     <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>     Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
>     experience any issues.
>
>
>
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer at umn.edu>
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210116/4af24514/attachment.htm>