<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>
<div>On Aug 31, 2013, at 9:09 AM, JFC Morfin <<a href="mailto:jefsey@jefsey.com">jefsey@jefsey.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Why is this that RIRs have been the first to endorse OpenStand RFC 6852 <a href="http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/" eudora="autourl">
http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/</a>?</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
For clarity, ARIN did not endorse the Open Stand platform, predominantly </div>
<div>because when the opportunity to participate presented itself, there was </div>
<div>insufficient time for consideration of this particular statement of principles</div>
<div>and implications by the ARIN community. Note also that "not endorsing" </div>
<div>does not equate to rejecting the Open Stand principles; it simply means that </div>
<div>they have not been brought before the ARIN community for consideration </div>
<div>at this time. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Many of the Open Stand principles (e.g. openness, transparency, equity, </div>
<div>fairness, consensus) may be found in ARIN's foundational documents, </div>
<div>but to me that does not equate to having community consideration and </div>
<div>endorsement of the full platform as it applies to the mission of ARIN. </div>
<div>Additionally, the Open Stand principles appear to have been chosen in</div>
<div>the context of technical standards development, and was not clear how </div>
<div>such principles would apply to activities for Internet number resource </div>
<div>management. For example, while calling for "voluntarily adoption" of </div>
<div>technical standards is fairly clear, less clear is how such a principle </div>
<div>would apply to the various registries (e.g. protocol, number, or name </div>
<div>registries) - all of which are predicated on consistent and near universal </div>
<div>adoption in order to maintain uniqueness and global interoperability.</div>
<div>Similarly, technical "standards that are chosen and defined based on </div>
<div>technical merit" seems quite clear, but that becomes less clear in the</div>
<div>registry policy realm given the possibility of applicable public policy </div>
<div>directives and/or mandates that may also warrant consideration in</div>
<div>the development of registry policy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Given the lack of ARIN community consideration of these principles, as </div>
<div>well as some uncertainty regarding its application to ARIN's mission, it </div>
<div>was not possible to endorse the Open Stand platform at announcement.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>FYI,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>p.s. FYI - ARIN's representation of the community in the region (on matters </div>
<div> of Internet governance and overall Internet policy) is based upon those </div>
<div> positions that have been repeatedly discussed at our member meetings </div>
<div> and which are represented on our web site here:</div>
<div> <<a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/arin.html">https://www.arin.net/participate/governance/arin.html</a>> </div>
<div> please feel free to provide feedback to me if you feel that these positions </div>
<div> are lacking in some manner - Thanks!</div>
</body>
</html>