[170479] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE:
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Curran)
Thu Mar 27 22:05:10 2014
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 02:04:30 +0000
In-Reply-To: <m2wqfffgdp.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:04 AM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:
> i will refrain from characterizing the ppml list. needless to say, i do
> not subscribe.
>=20
> my point is that what arin does should be of interest to nanog
> subscribers. in theory, the ops are the arin community, the registry
> serves operations. if it is not of interest to ops, it is not serving
> the community.
I fully agree, but also respect that this community has made some=20
conscience decisions regarding having ARIN be quite registry focused=20
and letting NANOG evolve as as a forum of the operators in the region. =20
I believe that several of the initiatives that you noted from the RIPE=20
region could easily be viewed as falling under either organization. =20
This community should not be disadvantaged by the structure of having=20
a distinct registry and distinct operator forum, but it does mean that
we need to be able to sort out _what_ the operators want and then where=20
it gets done.
Internet routing registries are a fine example; one could argue that=20
it should be integrated with the number resource registry, but we also=20
have examples of independent routing registries in active use (and I
can see some potential reasons why operators might even want there to
be a healthy separation between those functions.)
If the community has one mind of what routing registry capabilities is
wants here, including how it wants it governed and operated, I am quite=20
certain that ARIN will support the direction, regardless of where it ends=20
up being operated and how it ends up being governed. The lack I have=20
noted over the years is lack of clear direction from the community, but=20
that should not be something "ARIN" jumps in and tries to bring about -=20
it needs to be of interest to (and led by) the operators on this list.
We agree that ARIN needs to be relevant to the ops community, and I am
very open minded to any suggestions you have, but don't exactly think=20
that your examples from RIPE are necessarily where we want ARIN to go=20
as much as things we want to have happen, whether that's ARIN, NANOG,=20
or other associated organizations. On the other hand, your governance=20
examples from RIPE (e.g. "wg for discussing what services the ncc=20
offers") are directly on target, and I will share them on some other=20
lists that may defy characterization by you.
> [ get out of s'pore yet? drc got delayed a day with a missing part for
> his plane! ]
(Getting closer... the last plane was a fail due to fuel pump issues;=20
my dearest friends at United seemed have rerouted me through Hong Kong=20
but omitted a flight onward. Oh well.)
Thanks!
/John
