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

[Fernando Frediani]

Hi

On 15/08/2024 09:15, John Curran wrote:
>
>> <clip>
>
> Fernando –
>
> You extract only a portion of ICP-2 that discusses the requirements 
> for an RIR’s Policy Development Process, and then generalize it 
> inappropriately.
>
> Here’s the ICP-2 text in full.
>
>     "The new RIR needs to have and to clearly document defined
>     procedures for the development of resource management policies
>     which may be implemented regionally, as well as those that may be
>     recommended to the Address Council for consideration as global
>     policies. These procedures must be open and transparent, be
>     accessible to all interested parties, and ensure fair
>     representation of all constituencies within the region.”
>
>
> Note - It does not state that "Having fair representation of all 
> constituencies - as ICP-2 states - may mean more, as an active 
> representation of all stakeholders”, nor was that ever intended.
So you don't consider the possibility of having community elected 
members - those who make decisions - as fair representation ? You 
believe that simply giving community voice is enough ?
>
> The ICP-2 requirement states that _process_ for policy development 
> must be "be open and transparent, be accessible to all interested 
> parties, and ensure fair representation of all constituencies within 
> the region.”
Do you consider that a decision power in the hands of membership and 
just hearing what community people has to say but keeping the decision 
with a more narrow number of selected people is Ok and accessible to all 
interested parties ? Community, on your understanding, is already well 
represented by giving them voice only  or be candidates (but chosen by 
membership) ? Correct me if I misunderstand it.
>
> <clip>
>
> ARIN, again, is quite similar - our ARIN AC and ARIN Board of Trustees 
> are open to all (save for some enumerated conflicts of interest - 
> https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/processes/conflicts/) 
> and that includes having non-members serve on these bodies.  If you 
> believe that the ARIN AC needs more folks who are not ARIN members 
> upon it, you should encourage such candidates or run yourself as 
> desired.   You seem to presume that the ARIN AC and ARIN Board must be 
> composed of people from the ARIN membership, but indeed both are open 
> to any member of the community that wishes to run for election and 
> meets the basic requirements.   The fact that these bodies (Board and 
> ARIN AC) are elected by the members is not any different than occurs 
> in other regions - the only difference is the ARIN Board has delegated 
> primary administration of the policy development process to the ARIN AC.
I think there is an important point to highlight in this example and 
which I am basing my points on. I understand the possibility to have 
non-members serving on these bodies, but the decision whether or not to 
choose them is always and ultimately with the membership. Other examples 
as for example other RIRs the choice of who will take some decisions on 
the process is partly or fully with the community.
>
>>> 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.
>
> As other on this list have pointed out, the ARIN AC shepherds do try 
> to work with the author to get the proposal into reasonable shape, and 
> the author retains the the editors pen in that process.   It is only 
> once it is accepted as a draft policy that the ARIN AC handes 
> subsequent edits based the input on this list and from the public 
> policy consultations held at ARIN meetings.
That's exactly what needs to be changed and the author to retain the pen 
after the draft policy is accepted.
I understand that maybe is easier for ARIN to deal with this type of 
structure, it is less burden having to deal with less people, but in the 
other hand it strips community representation as true decision makers in 
this process being an author with the pen on his/her hands all the time 
to adjust the proposal as they think is better, not the AC shepherd. As 
mentioned AC shepherds can continue an important work on advising the 
author about the formalities of the process or even what text should fit 
better, but ultimately the decision of what goes  in the text should 
always remain with the author, even if it costs more time to have to 
deal with situations where an author is not very skilled, if that is the 
concern.

Above all what means more in my view is having freedom for all parts to 
do their job with their true original intents, being the authors to 
stick with their original ideal, the AC on helping and guiding the 
authors and evaluating the progress of a proposal and the ARIN Board in 
ratifying or not a proposal - in this case if there is legal damage to 
the organization.

Regards
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/20240815/5cf90fd1/attachment.htm>