Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in
> the process.  If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not
> getting the right stuff done...  How do we fix this problem?   How do we
> get more operators involved and active in the RIRs?
I'd like to point out that ARIN policy is _NOT_ controlled by ARIN
membership.
While the ARIN BOT has final approval/disapproval authority over proposed
policies, this is akin to a presidential VETO.  The ARIN AC has the primary
role in policy development and responsibility for judging community
consensus
around policies.  The ARIN AC is elected by the ARIN membership, but, ARIN
membership is not a requirement to run for or be elected to the AC.

Further, policy proposals may be made by any member of the community, not
just ARIN members.  I have been an active participant in ARIN for several
years now, and, only for part of that time was I affiliated with an ARIN
member.  In fact, I ran for AC while I was not an ARIN member.  I came
within a few votes of being elected.  I will run again this year.  It
is unlikely that I will be an ARIN member when I do.

> I think colocating 1 ARIN meeting/per year with Nanog in the fall has
> been a help. 
Yes.

Personally, I think ARIN is not all that dysfunctional.  I think it is
a lot less dysfunctional than IETF at this point.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.

Attachment: _bin
Description: