[170229] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: arin representation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Randy Bush)
Tue Mar 25 05:04:33 2014
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:04:09 +0900
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
In-Reply-To: <C10A21D5-E4D0-4C61-9C46-CE2B88FE4B29@arin.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> I do not agree with the characterization that "... we are ruled by
> self-perptuating monopolies which lack oversight and accountability",
when you have a governance committee which is composed of the governing,
not outsiders and governance experts, with no term limits, it would seem
hard to support that argument.
> - Simple terms and conditions for contracts with registries
> - Membership organizations for registries with term limits
> for Board and advisory bodies
> - Board diversity (meaning real world users)
> - Competitive registries
> - ...
i pretty much agree that arin should do these. except ...
iff we could get reasonable governance, i am not sure we need multiple
rirs. after all, the registries were just supposed to be bookkeepers.
but i agree that competition is a good method of injecting some reality
into the physics in the absense of other means.
but i eagerly await the simplification of arin's ts&cs. and get rid of
being able to change them unilateraly and arbitrarily, and get rid the
silly game about legacy rights, and a whole bunch of us might join.
randy
