[134800] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Jan 11 02:27:57 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <6013CADB-6031-42B7-86D7-F14E0F8DAB69@virtualized.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 23:24:31 -0800
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:23 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Owen,
>=20
> On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a =
variety public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must =
make use of. In other areas of public service provision, there are =
things like public utilities commissions that (in theory) ensure the =
monopoly service provider acts in the public benefit when services are =
added/changed/deleted. 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 similar in the ARIN region.
>>=20
>> In ARIN, there are things like BoT elections and the BoT very much =
fulfills the role of the PUC as you describe above.
>=20
> Well, ARIN BoT members are fiduciarily responsible for ARIN. PUC =
members, to my understanding, are responsible to the public. In my =
experience on ARIN's board, the key role of the board was to ensure the =
public policy process was followed, not oversight of how public services =
are provided. However, things might have changed -- that was some time =
ago. =20
>=20
Yes, ARIN BoT members have fiduciary responsibility for ARIN.
However, the ARIN charter is not the same as most corporations. Indeed, =
as I understand it, the ARIN charter requires that ARIN disband itself =
if that is determined to be what is in the best interests of the =
community. The board is accountable to the ARIN membership, which =
includes all subscriber ISPs and others who pay their annual membership =
dues.
I believe the board both ensures that the public policy process is =
followed and performs other executive management and leadership =
functions governing the operations of ARIN at a high level. Obviously =
most of the day-to-day decision making for that is vested in the CEO who =
also sits on the board.
>> People can submit requests for operational changes to ARIN through =
the ACSP and in my experience they get a good review
>> and comment period by the community
>=20
> Which community? ARIN or NANOG?
>=20
Those who subscribe to PPML. If you are interested in having a voice in =
ARIN policies or how ARIN operates, it's essential to be on that list.
>> and the board listens to these things and responds appropriately.
>=20
> Somewhat as an aside, I'm a bit surprised the board would get involved =
at the level of detail this implies. I would've thought how public =
services are to be provided would be an operational decision made by the =
ARIN CEO/staff and that the board would only get involved to ensure =
sufficient resources were available.
>=20
For the most part, it is. However, if the community is asking for =
something ARIN isn't doing or pushing for ARIN to change how it does =
something, the board tends to at least review the matter.=20
>> Especially if a
>> suggestion receives significant support, it tends to get implemented.
>=20
> My impression of the concern is that the definition of support and =
decisions regarding what gets implemented are made within a subset of =
the network operations community.
>=20
Anyone who wants to participate can join the mailing list and do so. I'm =
not sure how you would extend it to a wider group without seriously =
diminishing returns.
Owen
