|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2011 23:27:43 +0000 In-Reply-To: <AC9EA2C0-9C97-4FFA-8A2B-E1BF7E651795@virtualized.org> Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Jan 8, 2011, at 4:11 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Another view is that ARIN's whole and sole reason for being is to provide= services to the network operators in the ARIN region. As such, it would be= ill-advised for ARIN to change those services without consulting the commu= nity that ARIN serves and getting their buy-in. Hopefully, there's a middle= ground. Agreed. Presently, we rely upon the ARIN consultation and suggestion proce= ss=20 for getting tactical input on operational changes. We also recognize guida= nce=20 from the IETF both via IAB communications and in the form of the BCP RFC se= ries. =20 Obviously, if there were a convenient way for the operator community to pro= vide=20 consensus guidance on Internet number resource operational matters, such in= put=20 would be highly valued. > On Jan 7, 2011, at 10:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >> i hear in what you're saying >> a desire to have a way to impact ARIN's behaviour outside of NRPM edits >> and perhaps ARIN does need to address this with some new online forum fo= r >> things which aren't allocation policy but which should still be decided >> using community input. >=20 > Yep. Not sure it should be an ARIN-operated thing (nor am I sure that it= shouldn't be), but something a bit more focused on the operation of servic= es ARIN provides than ppml might be helpful. 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 i= s=20 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 s= ervice fees of the members. On Jan 8, 2011, at 4:15 PM, David Conrad wrote: > While I think BCOPs (and BCOP BoFs) are a great idea, I guess the questio= n is how can folks be assured that ARIN would follow a NANOG community-defi= ned BCOP relating directly to ARIN operations. For example, if the NANOG c= ommunity were to (reasonably) say "BCOP is to use IETF-defined standards fo= r publishing and accessing resource registration data", I'd imagine ARIN mi= ght (reasonably) disagree and continue down the RWS path. If the process for forming such recommendations were fair & open to the sam= e=20 community, the resulting documents would be quite compelling. While that d= oes not=20 assure ARIN would follow them, this community has never been shy about prov= iding feedback when the right things aren't happening... (and I'd note that a com= munity which capable of reaching consensus on such documents is equally capable of= seating=20 a Board amenable to such documents, if there ever were to be a problem in t= his area) > My impression is that the various WGs and SIGs in the other RIRs perform= something similar to that function. There doesn't appear to be anything s= imilar in the ARIN region. The role is served by the ARIN Board, which is member-elected and composed = of=20 volunteers (and myself as CEO). If folks think that a more formal structur= e for operational input (either within ARIN or via liaison to another body) i= s=20 called for, I'd suggest continued discussion on the various mailing lists. Interesting discussion... thanks for raising it. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |