On 19 Jan 2021, at 4:02 PM, Owen DeLong
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
...
I don’t know about the other RIRs, but in terms of ARIN, a careful reading of
the bylaws shows that for better or worse, the board has near absolute power
over virtually all aspects of the organization and its operations
I’m sure John will correct me if I’m wrong here, but to the best of my
knowledge,
in fact, the board has the power to set or modify policies independent of this
group. The board has, by its own decisions, vested some of that power in this
group and some in the AC. The board has set certain limit
Fernando -
You state "reading the ICP-2 it doesn't make sense the idea that Board could
make and adopt policies by itself without involvement of the community.” I
will not reiterate all my previous comments regarding whether ICP-2 is germane
in any matter, but will again remind you that compl
Sorry correcting a typo, I meant at the end "otherwise policies would
tend to be made directed to benefit only as subset of Internet
participants in the region."
Regards
Fernando
On 17/01/2021 11:53, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Hello Michael
I don't agree with John's view that if Board would d
Hello Michael
I don't agree with John's view that if Board would decide to do this it
would still make ARIN compatible with ICANN's ICP-2 specially Section 3
simply because Board represents only members not the community and
having a body elected only by the members which is one of the interes
Michael -
I’m happy to be of service – don’t hesitate to ask if you have any other
questions in this regard, as it’s not always obvious given the rich history of
ARIN and the Internet number registry system.
Best wishes,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Number
Thank you. This is very helpful for me.
Michael
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 00:18 John Curran wrote:
> Michael -
>
> Per its Bylaws, ARIN is obligated to "utilize an open, transparent
> multi-stakeholder process for registry policy development.”
>
> As such, the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP
Michael -
Per its Bylaws, ARIN is obligated to "utilize an open, transparent
multi-stakeholder process for registry policy development.”
As such, the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) is more than
advisory, it fulfill an organizational obligation that there be a clearly
doc
Hi John,
Just to be clear though my understanding is that despite the PDP being in
place and the board principally following the process, there is no
requirement to do so. The board could decide for any reason to implement or
change a policy even if it was not an emergency situation or warrant an
On 17 Jan 2021, at 4:16 AM, Michael B. Williams
wrote:
>
> Fernando -
>
> 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 resou
Fernando -
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.
John Curran - please correct me if I’m wrong here but t
Thanks for the clarification, David. I support the proposal as written.
michael
PS. My employer is covered under (L)RSA, so my question was "asking for
a friend." :-)
On 1/15/21 5:11 PM, David Farmer wrote:
In fact it does account for legacy resources, note such legacy resource
were allocat
Fernando -
Again, please do not make assertions regarding the structure and governance of
ARIN without direct knowledge of their accuracy. Your statement below ("What
I mentioned several times, is that the Board *can not* make rules for resources
allocation which is a sole prerogative from th
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.
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
There is no argument here.
Happy pandemic Saturday, all.
-M<
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 9:15 PM John Curran wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2021, at 8:37 PM, Fernando Frediani
> wrote:
>
>
> I am sure we are talking about the same thing David.
>
> The authority to establish the rules in which resources are
On 16 Jan 2021, at 8:37 PM, Fernando Frediani
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I am sure we are talking about the same thing David.
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),
I am sure we are talking about the same thing David.
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
No it doesn’t, that authority comes from the membership, not this policy
forum. Yes, there is significant overlap between the two, but they are
distinct groups.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 18:23 Fernando Frediani
wrote:
> Hi David
>
> I am not against it has, but it does because the authority given
Hi David
I am not against it has, but it does because the authority given to them
for that come from this forum (for the revocation part not the fee
structure).
4.2.1.2 makes it very clear and doesn't go into any operational details
and this proposal is willing to remove it.
Fernando
On 16/
The Board has the power to set fees, which includes at least the power to
revoke resources for nonpayment. If it did not, the power to set fees would
be meaningless.
Thanks
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 5:29 PM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
> John, let's make it simple: The Board has no power to *make and
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 ado
On 16 Jan 2021, at 3:39 PM, Fernando Frediani
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 Bo
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.
M
On 16 Jan 2021, at 10:35 AM, Fernando Frediani
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 exception
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, base
> On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:14 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>
> Yes to focus solely on allocation policies that means make it clear when a
> revocation may happen which is governed by this forum.
>
Fernando,
Only my personal opinion on the subject and subject to correction from ARIN
staff:
Re
Yes to focus solely on allocation policies that means make it clear when
a revocation may happen which is governed by this forum.
Agree that RSA can have all the possible details, but I see no harm in
keeping the text exactly as it is. Could anyone explain what sort of
trouble keeping the text
In fact it does account for legacy resources, note such legacy resource
were allocated or assigned by predecessors of ARIN and therefore not “by
ARIN under these policies”. Furthermore, Registration Services Agreement
and RSA are both use in several places in the NRPM, therefore having a
clear defi
Question: Does this change affect in any way the services provided by
ARIN to legacy holders who are not under (L)RSA? The new wording
proposed for section 2 doesn't seem to account for that category. My
thought is to simply delete 4.2.1.2 and be done with it. Does the NRPM
need to include a def
The language, as is, is problematic because there’s a clear delineation between
the NRPM and ARIN’s RSA/LRSAs. The former is intended to focus solely on
allocation policies, and is a living document subject to change via the PDP.
The RSA/LRSA agreements, however, are contracts whose language can
Applies to all resources of course. If not in the appropriate place then
add it there then. But not remove something that is very obvious.
How can it deal with the issues better by removing from the text that
part that makes it clear that resources may be revoked if they are not
payed ?
Fern
Are you saying fees only apply to ISPs with IPv4, the current text is in
section 4.2.1.4, where section 4.2 applies to Allocations to ISPs...
Furthermore, not paying fees is only one reason resources may be revoked or
reclaimed.
I think the new text is a better way to deal with the issues.
On Fr
Yes fees are most a RSA thing, but I see no harm to keep the actual
wording as it is and make it loud and clear that organizations that
don't pay the fees are subjected to resources revocation - which is up
to this forum to define - so no one may plead ignorance about it.
What is the problem to
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 5:49 PM Joe Provo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:42:45PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > [really big snips]
> >
> > >
> > > In the interest of both simplification and striving to eliminate
> > > the fee or contract details within policy, I'm a fan of Mr Woodfield's
> >
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 02:42:45PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> [really big snips]
>
> >
> > In the interest of both simplification and striving to eliminate
> > the fee or contract details within policy, I'm a fan of Mr Woodfield's
> > suggestion for simple generalization. What do folks think abo
[really big snips]
>
> In the interest of both simplification and striving to eliminate
> the fee or contract details within policy, I'm a fan of Mr Woodfield's
> suggestion for simple generalization. What do folks think about:
>
> 2.X Registration Services Agreement (RSA)
>
> Number resources
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 03:47:21PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Speaking only about my own personal opinion and observation on the situation
> with no authority whatsoever...
>
> > On Nov 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> >
> > FD: This policy is a work produce of the AC???s Policy
Speaking only about my own personal opinion and observation on the situation
with no authority whatsoever...
> On Nov 20, 2020, at 10:22 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
>
> FD: This policy is a work produce of the AC’s Policy Experience Report
> working group, which I currently chair.
>
> Taking m
I also support these changes.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:23 PM Chris Woodfield
wrote:
> FD: This policy is a work produce of the AC’s Policy Experience Report
> working group, which I currently chair.
>
> Taking my AC/WG chair hat off, I am in support of the updated language,
> with the caveat t
FD: This policy is a work produce of the AC’s Policy Experience Report working
group, which I currently chair.
Taking my AC/WG chair hat off, I am in support of the updated language, with
the caveat that the following assumptions can be relied upon:
1. The added language cannot be interpreted t
The following Draft Policy has been revised:
* ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee
Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2020_8/
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will evaluate
42 matches
Mail list logo
