nanog mailing list archives

Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network


From: Benson Schliesser <bensons () queuefull net>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:57:47 -0400



On Sep 18, 2011, at 21:20, John Curran <jcurran () arin net> wrote:

On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

In John's case (on behalf of ARIN as is befitting his role) he welcomes change as long as it's funneled through the 
ARIN-managed channels.  In other words, change is welcome as long as it reinforces ARIN's role as facilitator.  

... <a bunch of stuff that encourages people to use ARIN-managed channels> ...

For what it's worth, I agree that ARIN has a pretty good governance structure. (With the exception of NomCom this year, 
which is shamefully unbalanced.) That hasn't stopped it from becoming an ideological anachronism. Or from becoming 
interested in self-preservation. It's only natural for such organizations. 

And despite this, I do encourage folks here to participate in PPML. It's the only way ARIN will get more perspective. 
(Though, admittedly it is a bit like banging ones own head against the wall...)

However, your statement that I only welcome change funneled through 
"ARIN-managed channels" is incorrect, as I have made it quite plain 
on multiple occasions that the structure of the Internet number 
registry system itself is not necessarily a discussion that should
be held within the existing structure (e.g. RIRs and ICANN), but might 
also be appropriately held external to the existing structure (such as 
by operator forums or the Internet Governance Forum).

Are you suggesting that ARIN policy or procedure might change as a direct result of discussion in e.g. IGF? Or perhaps 
here on NANOG?

Cheers,
-Benson



Current thread: