[arin-ppml] AC candidates

[John Curran]

On Aug 9, 2024, at 4:11 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:

The center of any proposal should always be on the author(s) and shepherds should only facilitate discussion both within the AC and with the community, but have very little input into modifying the text. Above all what should always prevail is the author's idea. If his/her idea is too much out of what the community understands or believe is good and the author is not willing to make any adjustments than it shall not reach consensus and life follows normally.

Fernando -

You are, of course, welcome to your views regarding the merits of various approaches to the Internet number policy development.

I will note that the member-elected ARIN AC works predominately to administer the policy development process, and to do so in a highly uniform and consistent manner.   Some of the merits of such an approach is to make perfectly clear the development and status of each number resource policy proposal (and if there is any question about the overall AC’s administration, there is a clear and timely appeal process.)

I understand other regions rely on methods such as having policy working groups and their chairs make such considerations, but ARIN must follow something much closer to a formal standards development process due to the litigious nature of the region in which we operate.

I also have a feeling that sometimes AC members personal view end up overcoming the author's original idea (maybe not intentionally I reckon) which should never happen and there should be a high level of attention from each one to try to eliminate anything related to their personal view when dealing with advancing that proposal or not.

This is the case - I have found the individual AC members to be exemplary in avoiding any conflict with their own personal views when shepherding a policy proposal; as far as I can tell, the biggest conflicts have occurred when folks try to ignore the actual ARIN policy development process as written – for example, by proposing policy text (something not required at all) rather than describing the purported problem with present policy (something which is definitely required.)  The ARIN AC - and shepherds in particular - end up carrying the brunt of the ire of the authors in such cases, but again, it’s often due to failure of the authors to actually follow the policy development process in this region.

In short, AC should not ever act as a mini parliament to analyze merit of any proposals, but merely evaluate if there has been consensus from community about a proposal and of course if it matches whatever minimum necessary for a proposal to go through the whole policy development process.

The AC should administer the ARIN Policy Development Process, and that requires certain steps at each stage.   If you wish to change the requirements, please submit a suggestion via the ARIN ACSP detailing the changes that you’d like to see.

For that reason I also don't see ARIN PDP as a proper PDP compared to all others and suggest all involved parties to think of modifications of the current structure to make it more centered on both author proposal idea and community as sovereign, of course along with ARIN Board to ratify proposals that may not bring any legal damage to the organization.

I do agree that there are some significant differences in the policy development processes between the regions, and can only presume that there is good reasons for the policy development processes of the other regions just as there is in the ARIN region for its particular structure.  The member-elected ARIN Board of Trustees have fiduciary duty to the organization and as such must insure that ARIN’s policy development process is faithful to ARIN’s mission and its membership; that is potentially a higher bar at times that the popular view of the community at any given moment.

Maybe there was a reason to have such a tight and concentrated power in the past when it was created, but now a days it doesn't seem the best in terms of balance between community and members interest.

I suspect that "balancing issue" will enjoy deep consideration during the upcoming update of ICP-2, and it’s likely premature to anticipate the outcome of such discussions in advance.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20240809/ff0d0c15/attachment.htm>