<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/08/2024 09:15, John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA7C7AD5-52FE-4710-B2FA-70F683B3E670@arin.net">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><clip></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Fernando –</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You extract only a portion of ICP-2 that discusses the
requirements for an RIR’s Policy Development Process, and then
generalize it inappropriately. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Here’s the ICP-2 text in full. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">
<div>
<div>"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.”</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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 ?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA7C7AD5-52FE-4710-B2FA-70F683B3E670@arin.net">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.”</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA7C7AD5-52FE-4710-B2FA-70F683B3E670@arin.net">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<clip><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA7C7AD5-52FE-4710-B2FA-70F683B3E670@arin.net">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ARIN, again, is quite similar - our ARIN AC and ARIN Board
of Trustees are open to all (save for some enumerated
conflicts of interest - <a
href="https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/processes/conflicts/"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/processes/conflicts/</a>)
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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA7C7AD5-52FE-4710-B2FA-70F683B3E670@arin.net">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="auto"
style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:C1BB9C10-7C42-4F4C-83C1-C25EB3FDD78E@arin.net">
<div dir="auto"
style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<div>
<div>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.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
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.
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
That's exactly what needs to be changed and the author to retain the
pen after the draft policy is accepted.<br>
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.<br>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA7C7AD5-52FE-4710-B2FA-70F683B3E670@arin.net">
<div>
<div> </div>
</div>
<br>
<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>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>