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.
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.
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.
Regards
Fernando
On 16/01/2021 16:59, John Curran wrote:
On 16 Jan 2021, at 10:35 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com
<mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello Owen
*Any* revocation must always be governed by this forum which is the
only body who has power to define allocation policies and therefore
revocation. RIRs don't have power for that, except on exceptional
situations (section 10.1) which have to be confirmed by this forum.
The RIR, based on RSA may stop providing services to organizations
that are not up to their payments, but a policy that states loud and
clear that organizations that fail to pay their fees are also subject
to revocation, reason why I see no harm to leave the text as it is.
Yes, the Board is free to modify the RSA at will, but they need to
make it coherent to the whatever the policies say, where it applies
of course (ex: Policy say that undue payments leads to resources
revocation. RSA may outline the details how the services will stop
being provided until the resources are revoked in line with this
forum has the sole prerogative to define.)
Just as a comparison and knowing that each RIR PDP may have its
differences, the essence of ICP-2 is the same, the LACNIC policy
manual clearly states in section 7 that lack payment (among other
reasons) is a reason for revocation. Beyond that which is
specifically stated in the manual it also says that "violations on
contractual obligations with LACNIC" may be a reason for revocation.
In resume, that is defined by the Policy Forum for the RIR to execute.
Fernando -
Your assertion is incorrect with respect to ARIN, in that the text in
the RSA is controlling in this regard (as Owen noted earlier.)
Each RIR has to conform with its own agreements and applicable law,
and such may have operational impacts on the management of number
resources in the region absent any corresoonding policy.
As RIRs are member-based organizations, members in the region elect a
governing board that hold overall responsibility for the business of
the RIR. This is no different in ARIN region – the membership of
ARIN elects a Board which has authority for the organization and this
includes establising more operational matters such as budget,
services, fees, and agreements.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
