[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 184.108.40.206 Annual Renewal Fee
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sat Jan 16 18:28:40 EST 2021
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 ?
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
>> 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.
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML