[arin-ppml] AC structure (was AC candidates)

[Fernando Frediani]

Thanks for the comments John.

On 13/08/2024 13:11, John Curran wrote:
>
> You seem to be under the impression that the both the ARIN AC and the 
> ARIN Board simply do as they please and exercise “a high level of 
> power” when it comes to the ARIN Policy Development Process (ARIN 
> PDP), and nothing could be further from the truth.
No at all, absolutely. I didn't say or mean that. I said the power 
exists in these entities and that is as it is, not necessarily they have 
been exercising it as they please.
>
> Yes, the ARIN Board of Trustees ultimately approves policy changed to 
> the number resource policy manual, so there is enormous potential 
> power in their hands.
>
> However,  the reality is that the ARIN PDP charges the Board with very 
> clear criteria to be used in its evaluation of recommended draft 
> policies – specifically, that the PDP was properly followed and that 
> the resulting policy satisfies the principles of required of number 
> resource policy specified in the PDP.   It is extremely rare that the 
> ARIN Board of Trustees does not ratify policy recommended by the ARIN 
> AC, and when it does not, it’s generally because it is acting on 
> behalf of the community to make sure that the policy writeup of 
> compliance is clear and complete, or that there are not concerns about 
> adherence to the PDP (such as those raised in petition.)
Nothing wrong with that so far. We are on the same page.
>
> It is true that both the ARIN AC and the Board are elected by the 
> membership, but at this point membership is open to anyone with as 
> much a single IP address block or one AS #, so it is rather low 
> threshold at that.
> Furthermore, the actual policy development process itself is open to 
> input from any/all participants, just you are doing so now by 
> participating on the arin-ppml mailing list.
True, but my point is about representation and the actors who have each 
responsibility. One of the main points of this discussion and suggested 
by some is to keep the pen on the hands of the author.
The openness of the PDP for the input of any/all participants is what is 
excepted anywhere and that covers part of what ICP-2 says about. Even 
with such change (having truly community representatives) there are 
other mechanisms to check and validate if the process is being followed 
as expected with AC playing their role and ultimately the Board.
>
>> Other regions, chairs are elected by community and should they commit 
>> any mistakes or abuses the RIR Board still have the power to not 
>> ractify an approved proposal or in certain cases even to dismiss them.
>> Having community members in a new structure can be a good start.
>
> See above - ARIN currently has an open policy development p rocess 
> that takes input from the entire community.  If you believe that your 
> input as a community member wasn’t given fair consideration, then you 
> can raise this with ARIN AC or the ARIN Board – as with the scenario 
> you describe in the other regions, the ARIN Board already has the 
> ability to intervene if the PDP is not properly followed.
I trust that happens in many occasions, but be opened to input may not 
be enough sometimes. Having fair representation of all constituencies - 
as ICP-2 states - may mean more, as an active representation of all 
stakeholders and as we all know, membership differs from community to 
certain subjects. I am not suggesting simply the entire AC to start 
being elected by community, but as it is now doesn't sound reasonable it 
being elected solely by membership either. I compared to similar 
scenarios and suggested something different that weight things better 
which deserves further thought.
>
>> <clip>
>
> It is incumbent upon the author to clearly communicate the problem 
> with current policy that warrants a change.  The community should not 
> be expected to make changes to number resource policy based on what an 
> author might be thinking but seemingly cannot communicate.   The ARIN 
> AC actually serves to help the authors with this very process, as the 
> assigned sheperds are tasking with working with the author to achieve 
> this clarity.
Well, if the author has the knowledge to do and know well what he/she is 
proposing what is the issue with that ? Overall there must be consensus 
from community, in order for a proposal to advance, so if the author 
makes up something that doesn't make any sense and doesn't follow AC 
shepherds advice hardly that proposal will progress anyway. Nothing 
stops the AC to keep helping authors in that sense, but decision about 
what the text should is should remain with the author.
>
>> <clip>
>
> It should be noted that many authors often are unaware of the policy 
> development process or the requirements for a policy at each stage, 
> and simply want to “change some text” - we actually don’t work that 
> way in the ARIN region - the PDP provides a clear and structured 
> process that can be administrated fairly and provides the same 
> criteria to all proposals at each phase of the process.  It is indeed 
> more detailed than many folks expect, but such formalism is not a 
> random occurrence but natural evolution of the PDP baed on lessons 
> learned from its use in the region over the decades.
Well, I don't get this part. If the author believes any part of the 
proposal demands changes based on the discussion what is the problem if 
he wants to change it ? If it doesn't work that way now a days it can 
start working, just need to be adjusted. As long the PDP is followed I 
see no issues with that. Correct me, but I see there may be a fair 
amount of concern about folks that may not know well the process, create 
some confusion eventually and that may happen. For that there will be 
the AC shepherds to advice and guide those who need more assistance 
before making any change. I see that as valuable, even if it costs more 
time. In other words pays off for keeping the pen in the author's hand 
and what that means.
>
> <clip>
Thanks again for the input

Fernando


>
> 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/20240814/bb9901e4/attachment.htm>