IP: A final note to all on this [Arin djf]. . .

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Just a comment. His point of the Advisory Boardbeing toothless is correct.
Only BOD/BOT can change things and they can and often do ignore Advisory
Boards (personal experience)


Dave




Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:55:25 -0400
From: Dave McClure <exec () aop org>
Subject: A final note to all on this. . .
To: "'steve () klingler com'" <steve () klingler com>,
        "'sky () earthlink com'"
        <sky () earthlink com>
Cc: "'farber () cis upenn edu'" <farber () cis upenn edu>


Thanks for forwarding Mr. Cook's listserv posting.  Sadly, the format and
tenor of the note is very familiar from previous attacks on this listserv.


In typical fashion, the author proclaims himself to be one of the most
important people on the Internet, connected with God and everyone else, and
then goes on to launch a personal attack on me, on the Association, or
both.  What generally follows then is a defense of the ARIN proposal based
on information that is not public, or on the personal integrity of the NSI
employees involved.  As with the other statements, this one also veers off
into some imcomprehensible discussion of "Big" versus "Little" players, as
if this is germane to the issue.


Some particular comments on Mr. Cook's note:


<I mentioned that I had found out that article 8 of the By-laws said
that within one year of the date of the incorporation the board was
obligated to have procedures in place for the immediate election of the
advisory council members by the ARIN membership - thus letting the air out
of the argument that the ARIN board would be a self perpetuating monopoly.>


The issue is not the Advisory Board, but the Board of Trustees.  The
Advisory Board has no authority over ARIN.  This is typical of the
misdirection and misinformation we have encountered in previous attempts to
gain information.


<But I complained that the by-laws were not yet on the web site. Why not?
Because they are still being revised. I replied that, in view of the
situation, if ARIN is to have a chance at being successful, it would sure
as heck help to get the current version up there with a statement that
there might be subsequent revisions.>


Amen to that.  It is what we have requested since February, in place of the
proposal that is (still) posted publicly as the ARIN organization we should
support.


<That its goal is not to take in more money than is
necessary to cover its expenses. That its members will see the balance
sheets and that it fully expects its members to tell it to lower its
rates, if it appears that income is exceeding expenses by too unhealthy an
amount.>


Which is identical to the way the US government justifies expenditures.
 Two points here.  In the real world, a non-profit raises its budget based
on its ability to perform the mission and garner support from its members.
 Not by charging what it likes through a monopoly on a critical resource.
 And what is the mechanism by which members will tell ARIN anything?  If
they have no control over the Board of Trustees who set the rates and
approve the expenditures, they may as well be whistling in the wind.


<I am convinced that she is totally
committed to the integrity of the IP number process, and that if any group
of "nasty big boys" every tried to pervert things so that they held a
knife to the throats of smaller ISPs, that she'd blow the whistle damned
quick and resign if need be to see that it didn't happen. >


I'm not sure what this is about.  The concern is not a group of "nasty big
boys," it is a group of self-appointed Trustees who are not accountable to
anyone.  Case in point:  who selected the ARIN Trustees?  And why is there
not a single CEO or CFO of a major ISP on the list?  What major ISPs have
voiced public support for this proposal?




Steve, my first degree was in Physics, and my masters in business
administration.  Both taught me to look at a proposal both in terms of the
people involved and the structure of =A8