<div dir="auto">Fernando -</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don’t believe this is correct. The board, from my reading, is able to make and adopt without any other input or approval from anyone else any policy they deem appropriate fair and fit for internet number and resource allocation.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">John Curran - please correct me if I’m wrong here but the board could make and adopt policies without any community input or consideration if it so desired. Just because the board chooses to, as a general matter of principle, does not make this binding.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Michael </div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 13:48 Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>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 <span lang="en"><span><span>concession
</span></span></span>that the Board has made to the community,
otherwise the RIR would not be recognized by ICANN. <br>
</p>
<p>Can we move straight to the point of this discussion ?<br>
The section 4.2.1.2 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.</p></div><div>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 16/01/2021 23:14, John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
On 16 Jan 2021, at 8:37 PM, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div>
<div>
<p>I am sure we are talking about the same thing
David.</p>
<p>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.<br>
The authority to establish fee structure, operational
procedures, etc is a prerogative from the Board and
Staff.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div>
<div>Fernando – </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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 – </div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
Per ARIN’s Articles of Incorporation and accompanying Bylaws, ARIN
is a membership organization.<br>
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. <br>
<br>
<div>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 authority. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Sent from Gmail Mobile</div>