Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

[Jack Bates <jbates () brightok net>]

On 1/9/2011 5:27 PM, John Curran wrote:
> Excellent question.  To the extent that it is best practices on these types of
> services, then that's relatively easy for ARIN to interface with... if it is
> specific direction to ARIN to "do xyz", then ultimately the decision rests with
> the ARIN Board regarding that input, since that involves how we spend the service
> fees of the members.

Which ARIN membership does have some resources on, though I do believe 
they could be improved, as most membership input deals more with the 
NRPM and not with auxiliary services.

> The role is served by the ARIN Board, which is member-elected and composed of
> volunteers (and myself as CEO).  If folks think that a more formal structure
> for operational input (either within ARIN or via liaison to another body) is
> called for, I'd suggest continued discussion on the various mailing lists.

It's always a stickler, too. PPML works well for NRPM, but ARIN doesn't 
have enough auxiliary services to warrant a mailing list dealing with 
them. It becomes more of a suggestion, proposal, feedback, 
implementation, more feedback process. ARIN is generally good at 
notification of implementation concerning new services, though it would 
be nice if they had better channels for feedback through the entire 
process of new services so that they could be closer in sync with the 
membership. I don't believe services should reach the PDP level, but 
better communication wouldn't hurt, especially with members who 
generally don't know how or realize they can participate.

It's just my personal opinion as a member. ARIN always has communication 
with other organizations and even nanog. They've always been polite in 
accepting input from others (even if they don't implement every 
suggestion, they'll be much nicer than some IETF people). :)


Jack