[144771] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Mon Sep 19 00:59:31 2011
In-Reply-To: <B113B2BF-03F4-4E1C-9843-BF46B7526039@arin.net>
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:57:47 -0400
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 18, 2011, at 21:20, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>>=20
>> In John's case (on behalf of ARIN as is befitting his role) he welcomes c=
hange as long as it's funneled through the ARIN-managed channels. In other w=
ords, change is welcome as long as it reinforces ARIN's role as facilitator.=
=20
>=20
> ... <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 structur=
e. (With the exception of NomCom this year, which is shamefully unbalanced.)=
That hasn't stopped it from becoming an ideological anachronism. Or from be=
coming interested in self-preservation. It's only natural for such organizat=
ions.=20
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 li=
ke banging ones own head against the wall...)
> However, your statement that I only welcome change funneled through=20
> "ARIN-managed channels" is incorrect, as I have made it quite plain=20
> on multiple occasions that the structure of the Internet number=20
> registry system itself is not necessarily a discussion that should
> be held within the existing structure (e.g. RIRs and ICANN), but might=20
> also be appropriately held external to the existing structure (such as=20
> by operator forums or the Internet Governance Forum).
Are you suggesting that ARIN policy or procedure might change as a direct re=
sult of discussion in e.g. IGF? Or perhaps here on NANOG?
Cheers,
-Benson
