[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 22.214.171.124 Annual Renewal Fee
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sat Jan 16 21:47:55 EST 2021
I am not exactly sure what are you trying to ensure here, but most of
what you mentioned below is well known and not disputed.
What I mentioned several times, is that the Board *can not* make rules
for resources allocation which is a sole prerogative from this forum.
Board may or may not adopt them but cannot make them at will. Board
cannot simply define the initial allocation size for ISPs, or Waiting
List rules or create a specific IPv4 pool to facilitate IPv6 deployment.
Where was mentioned the Board of Trustees has adopted a PDP, so AC and
community can work via this forum to develop policy proposals. According
to ICANN's ICP-2, it had no other choice to do that and adopt a PDP that
ensure it is up to the community to define the allocation rules, so it
is not a concession that the Board has made to the community, otherwise
the RIR would not be recognized by ICANN.
Can we move straight to the point of this discussion ?
The section 126.96.36.199 mentions that lack of payment is a reason for
revocation and it makes no propose to remove it from there as simple as
it is written in that part of NRPM.
On 16/01/2021 23:14, John Curran wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2021, at 8:37 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I am sure we are talking about the same thing David.
>> The authority to establish the rules in which resources are allocated
>> and revoked is a prerogative from this forum (which includes members
>> and non-members), as in any other RIR. The PDP guarantees the Board
>> the ultimate authority to adopt a new policies in order to make sure
>> it is in line with all legal and operational aspects of the RIR system.
>> The authority to establish fee structure, operational procedures, etc
>> is a prerogative from the Board and Staff.
> Fernando –
> Given the widespread nature of this forum, I am obligated to correct
> misinformation regarding the nature of ARIN whenever it is posted
> here. Your statements above regarding ARIN’s authority are not
> correct, and I thought it best if I take a moment to provide ARIN’s
> authority in succinct format so that we may all move on to discussing
> the merits and concerns with the particular policy proposal under
> discussion –
> Per ARIN’s Articles of Incorporation and accompanying Bylaws, ARIN is
> a membership organization.
> The membership provides ARIN its authority by election of our Board of
> Trustees. The Board of Trustees holds ARIN's authority, and exercises
> that authority to further the purposes of the organization.
> The ARIN members also elect an Advisory Council (ARIN AC), which
> advises the Board of Trustees on number resource policy matters. The
> Board of Trustees has adopted a Policy Development Process, which
> directs the ARIN AC to work with the community, including via this
> forum, to develop worthwhile policy proposals. The PDP does not
> provide any authority to the Board, but rather the converse - the PDP
> is binding upon those who participate in our policy development
> process because it was adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The
> ARIN PDP specifies a role for the community in the policy development
> process, but "the community” (if defined as being the diffuse group of
> participants in this forum) do not hold or provide ARIN with its
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML