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 !
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
Fernando
On 16/01/2021 19:30, John Curran wrote:
On 16 Jan 2021, at 3:39 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com
<mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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.
Fernando -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.