<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>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 !<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.<br>
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 ?<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/01/2021 19:30, John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:43F98589-4179-4A74-A1AE-819A1BEB05D7@arin.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
On 16 Jan 2021, at 3:39 PM, Fernando Frediani <<a
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br
class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Fernando - </div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">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.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>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 needed. </div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="">
<div class="">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.</div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks,</div>
<div class="">/John</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">John Curran</div>
<div class="">President and CEO</div>
<div class="">American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>