On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:15 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Lee, > > On Jan 8, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote: >> I think that's a bit of what we've been trying to do with the Best Current >> Operational Practices BoFs. We need a place where operators can discuss and >> document BCOPs. > > While I think BCOPs (and BCOP BoFs) are a great idea, I guess the question is > how can folks be assured that ARIN would follow a NANOG community-defined > BCOP relating directly to ARIN operations. For example, if the NANOG > community were to (reasonably) say "BCOP is to use IETF-defined standards for > publishing and accessing resource registration data", I'd imagine ARIN might > (reasonably) disagree and continue down the RWS path. > > 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. > > Regards, > -drc >
In ARIN, there are things like BoT elections and the BoT very much fulfills the role of the PUC as you describe above. 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 and the board listens to these things and responds appropriately. Especially if a suggestion receives significant support, it tends to get implemented. Owen
