On Sep 18, 2011, at 21:20, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> >> In John's case (on behalf of ARIN as is befitting his role) he welcomes >> change as long as it's funneled through the ARIN-managed channels. In other >> words, change is welcome as long as it reinforces ARIN's role as >> facilitator. > > ... <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 structure. (With the exception of NomCom this year, which is shamefully unbalanced.) That hasn't stopped it from becoming an ideological anachronism. Or from becoming interested in self-preservation. It's only natural for such organizations. 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 like banging ones own head against the wall...) > However, your statement that I only welcome change funneled through > "ARIN-managed channels" is incorrect, as I have made it quite plain > on multiple occasions that the structure of the Internet number > registry system itself is not necessarily a discussion that should > be held within the existing structure (e.g. RIRs and ICANN), but might > also be appropriately held external to the existing structure (such as > by operator forums or the Internet Governance Forum). Are you suggesting that ARIN policy or procedure might change as a direct result of discussion in e.g. IGF? Or perhaps here on NANOG? Cheers, -Benson
