RE: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Owen DeLong > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:00 AM > To: Edward Lewis > Cc: Andrew Dul; nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder > > [ snip ] > Right... So, things divide into two categories... Major > Undertakings and > changes to existing policy... Requires policy process. > Easily implemented > obvious wins for everyone (a pingable address within a new block would > be an example here) where the first step should be a polite "Hey ARIN > Staff, can this be done?" If the staff says "Sure...Easy... > look for an > announcement soon.", then my experience has been they tend to get > implemented fairly quickly (I believe this is what I just saw from > Leslie a couple of minutes ago on this very issue). If the staff says > no, they generally provide reasons and suggestions. In this > case, either > the policy process or an alternative solution is probably in order. The problem I see with it not being in policy process is that it means it's not permanent. Personally, I think that this is a great idea, but I don't necessarily agree that it's as easy as pinging a host address in terms of scalability and effectiveness. Outside the policy process, we lose the framework of discussion and consensus. The staff is fantastic. Responsive. Intelligent. Good leadership. But it may not always be that way. These things aren't static. YMMV -M<
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
Here's my dilemma. On the one hand I hear calls for greater operational input to ARIN. On the other hand is empirical evidence that there isn't much input being given. Correct... Generally, you hear those calls coming from ARIN because ARIN is trying to maximize the involvement of its constituency. This is a good thing, but, should not create the illusion that there is not already significant involvement. This is sort of one of those "We can always do better" kind of issues, and, I think that active solicitation is better than the alternatives. What I have been trying to do extract what latent operational input might be fed to ARIN, judging from discussions I have seen at other RIRs, the IETF, etc. If there aren't follow ups to these ideas, then I would conclude that ARIN isn't dysfunctional and is operating as it should be, an idea supported by what is above. If there are ideas forthcoming, then maybe there is a need to encourage participation. Got it. Yes, I think that there needs to be encouragement for ideas to be forthcoming whether such ideas exist or not. I think ARIN is doing a pretty good job of providing that encouragement. This thread was ignited by the desire to have a pingable address in newly allocated blocks (from IANA to ARIN), and maybe Randy's suggestion is all that is needed - simply asking ARIN to do this. Maybe policies aren't the only way to influence ARIN's operation. Right... So, things divide into two categories... Major Undertakings and changes to existing policy... Requires policy process. Easily implemented obvious wins for everyone (a pingable address within a new block would be an example here) where the first step should be a polite "Hey ARIN Staff, can this be done?" If the staff says "Sure...Easy... look for an announcement soon.", then my experience has been they tend to get implemented fairly quickly (I believe this is what I just saw from Leslie a couple of minutes ago on this very issue). If the staff says no, they generally provide reasons and suggestions. In this case, either the policy process or an alternative solution is probably in order. With a minimal reading of the policy manual and some thought, I think it's fairly easy to sort out which type of request fits in which category. If in doubt, ask the staff first, they'll be happy to tell you whether it requires policy or can be done at the staff level. Owen pgp0mxnC0GSdG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
--On Thursday, March 24, 2005 16:32 -0500 Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 12:53 -0800 3/24/05, Owen DeLong wrote: NO. Operational specifications and routing are the domain of the IETF and _NOT_ ARIN. ARIN is responsible for the stewardship of assigned numbers within the ARIN region. This includes IP addresses, Autonomous System Numbers, and, DNS delegations for reverses on IP addresses. While ARIN should consider routing issues and the operational impact of ARIN stewardship policies, and, ARIN also has an educational role in helping the community to understand BCP including operational BCP as it relates to IP Addresses, ASNs, and DNS, ARIN has no role in dictating or driving operational practices. My question is not related to specification development but operational requirements of ARIN itself providing a service based on specifications. E.g., picking something a bit more concrete that secure routing, should ARIN deploy DNSSEC support, once it is published (again), in 6 months? 12 months? 10 years? This will tell the staff what level of staffing is needed to accomplish the work. The policy discussion will let membership know whether it is willing to pay for this. (Open to the public or not, the membership determines what it pays.) When DNSSEC is released again (whenver that may be), if ARIN constituency wants ARIN to support it, at least one such person will make a policy proposal. In the policy proposal, there will be a proposed or intended timeframe for implementation. This is a requirement of the policy process. If ARIN staff does not feel it can meet that timeframe, that will be part of the discussion in the Staff Impact slide that is presented with each proposal at the ARIN meeting(s) where the proposal is discussed. Discretionary funding for supporting research within the IETF should exist too, to cover participation in development of specifications at an appropriate level of effort. ARIN has, so far, expressed a desire not to do this. Indeed, ARIN has specifically encouraged ARIN members to participate individually in IETF, but, feels that ARIN as a body has no role to play there. Let's say DNSSEC is ready for deployment. Does the impetus come from the ARIN staff or from the membership? (Maybe it comes from outside, but does it need to be made into a policy before the staff implements it?) Neither. It comes from the ARIN constituency, which is the entire community of IP consumers within the ARIN region. The imeptus would come from a policy proposal. Anyone who has an interest can submit a policy proposal to ARIN. I'm not sure ARIN has a change or innovation role. It is not unlikely that responsible stewardship includes a minimum of change and a preservation of stability and consistency. ARIN has two definite roles when it comes to innovation. 1) Don't get in the way of innovation by the community and 2) provide expert advice when it comes to the development of specifications related to RIR functions. And ARIN ought to be wary of trends in the improvement of its internal operations. Agreed. However, this is different from the impression I received from the earlier comments that seemed to suggest that ARIN had a role as an innovator. Finally, as to 1, to a certain extent, ARIN does have a partial responsibility to stand in the way of some innovation if in ARIN's view said innovation might be harmful to existing services. An example of role number 1 is providing DNS services over IPv6 transport. An example of role number 2 is contributing to the discussion of the IRIS definitions for address registries. In neither case is ARIN leading the charge, but is playing a part in innovation. I don't believe ARIN had any delay between ARIN beginning to issue IPv6 allocations and ARIN providing DNS/v6 services. Until such time as ARIN had policy and responsibility for issuing IPv6 addresses, ARIN had no reason whatsoever to provide any DNS/v6 services. To come back to secure routing, the reason ARIN would be involved is that ARIN would be asked to publish information on who is allocated number resources. Although this is done in WhoIs now, there is a need to do this via whatever format is required by "secure routing." I'm sure the specification of secure routing will describe how to operate the protocol, but not address the server capacity nor topology needed. Again, if that feature is desired by anyone in ARIN constituency, then, a relevant policy proposal will be put forth, and, the issue will be debated and addressed according to community consensus. I do not see this as dysfunctional. Perhaps policies aren't the vehicle, but then how does the operational community get ARIN to supply services? Policies _ARE_ the vehicle, and, I guess I don't understand what it is you think is dysfunctional about the policy process, since from what I can see, it addresses exactly the issues you describe above. Owen pgpIY33PxRCt4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
>> NO. Operational specifications and routing are the domain of the IETF >> and _NOT_ ARIN. whoever wrote this should share what they're smoking. > Let's say DNSSEC is ready for deployment. and cash falls from the sky randy
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
At 13:01 -0800 3/24/05, Owen DeLong wrote: There are not many such proposals in play at the moment because the ARIN community reached consensus around most of these issues over the last two years. There seems to be general agreement that the current state of things is acceptable in terms of Whois and DNS. While ARIN runs a Routing Registry as part of it's public service focus, I do not believe that ARIN should have a defining role in the IRR process. In general, that also is the purview of the IETF. Here's my dilemma. On the one hand I hear calls for greater operational input to ARIN. On the other hand is empirical evidence that there isn't much input being given. What I have been trying to do extract what latent operational input might be fed to ARIN, judging from discussions I have seen at other RIRs, the IETF, etc. If there aren't follow ups to these ideas, then I would conclude that ARIN isn't dysfunctional and is operating as it should be, an idea supported by what is above. If there are ideas forthcoming, then maybe there is a need to encourage participation. This thread was ignited by the desire to have a pingable address in newly allocated blocks (from IANA to ARIN), and maybe Randy's suggestion is all that is needed - simply asking ARIN to do this. Maybe policies aren't the only way to influence ARIN's operation. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Achieving total enlightenment has taught me that ignorance is bliss.
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
At 12:53 -0800 3/24/05, Owen DeLong wrote: NO. Operational specifications and routing are the domain of the IETF and _NOT_ ARIN. ARIN is responsible for the stewardship of assigned numbers within the ARIN region. This includes IP addresses, Autonomous System Numbers, and, DNS delegations for reverses on IP addresses. While ARIN should consider routing issues and the operational impact of ARIN stewardship policies, and, ARIN also has an educational role in helping the community to understand BCP including operational BCP as it relates to IP Addresses, ASNs, and DNS, ARIN has no role in dictating or driving operational practices. My question is not related to specification development but operational requirements of ARIN itself providing a service based on specifications. E.g., picking something a bit more concrete that secure routing, should ARIN deploy DNSSEC support, once it is published (again), in 6 months? 12 months? 10 years? This will tell the staff what level of staffing is needed to accomplish the work. The policy discussion will let membership know whether it is willing to pay for this. (Open to the public or not, the membership determines what it pays.) Discretionary funding for supporting research within the IETF should exist too, to cover participation in development of specifications at an appropriate level of effort. Let's say DNSSEC is ready for deployment. Does the impetus come from the ARIN staff or from the membership? (Maybe it comes from outside, but does it need to be made into a policy before the staff implements it?) I'm not sure ARIN has a change or innovation role. It is not unlikely that responsible stewardship includes a minimum of change and a preservation of stability and consistency. ARIN has two definite roles when it comes to innovation. 1) Don't get in the way of innovation by the community and 2) provide expert advice when it comes to the development of specifications related to RIR functions. And ARIN ought to be wary of trends in the improvement of its internal operations. An example of role number 1 is providing DNS services over IPv6 transport. An example of role number 2 is contributing to the discussion of the IRIS definitions for address registries. In neither case is ARIN leading the charge, but is playing a part in innovation. To come back to secure routing, the reason ARIN would be involved is that ARIN would be asked to publish information on who is allocated number resources. Although this is done in WhoIs now, there is a need to do this via whatever format is required by "secure routing." I'm sure the specification of secure routing will describe how to operate the protocol, but not address the server capacity nor topology needed. Perhaps policies aren't the vehicle, but then how does the operational community get ARIN to supply services? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Achieving total enlightenment has taught me that ignorance is bliss.
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
--On Thursday, March 24, 2005 3:20 PM -0500 Edward Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At 17:01 + 3/24/05, Andrew Dul wrote: > >> I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in >> the process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not >> getting the right stuff done... How do we fix this problem? How do we >> get more operators involved and active in the RIRs? > > In the spirit of cart and horse, it's not about getting more operators > involved in ARIN. It's about getting operators to use ARIN as a resource > in the proper way. (I'm addressing operators here as this is NANOG.) > Fair enough... > What do operators expect from ARIN? Most ARIN policies are centered on > the administrative function of allocation of address space and AS > numbers. Is that all there is? Are the existing policies all that are > needed? > Other than a community service/educational role on issues related to the above policies, yes, that is the limits of ARIN's charter. Other issues are the purview of ICANN, IETF, IESG, and ISOC. > Are there concerns about the live-in-the-network registry services like > WhoIs, DNS, IRIS, routing registry? There are not many policy proposals > (lame delegations, privacy concerns with WhoIs) in play covering > operational considerations. > There are not many such proposals in play at the moment because the ARIN community reached consensus around most of these issues over the last two years. There seems to be general agreement that the current state of things is acceptable in terms of Whois and DNS. While ARIN runs a Routing Registry as part of it's public service focus, I do not believe that ARIN should have a defining role in the IRR process. In general, that also is the purview of the IETF. >> ARIN isn't perfect but it could be a lot worse. In some ways I think the >> issue you describe is an industry wide problem. There are many different >> groups (RIRs, ICANN, IETF, Nanogs, etc...) and participating in all of >> them is a lot of effort, especially when most of us already have >> full-time jobs. > > Participating in all of them *is* a full-time job. ;) > Right, but, the portion of the internet community which consists of organizations willing to pay an FTE to do that job is very small. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgpPNxZlaCq55.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
> One question does haunt me about how the operations community views ARIN. > Most ARIN policies are concerned with address allocation, reporting, and > such. There are not many policies regarding the functional role ARIN > plays in the Internet, the only one that leaps to mind is a lame > delegation policy under discussion. > > The (haunting) question is whether the operations community feels that > there should be operational policies put before ARIN. E.g., support for > secure routing - when a concrete approach is defined that needs RIR > input, should ARIN play? > NO. Operational specifications and routing are the domain of the IETF and _NOT_ ARIN. ARIN is responsible for the stewardship of assigned numbers within the ARIN region. This includes IP addresses, Autonomous System Numbers, and, DNS delegations for reverses on IP addresses. While ARIN should consider routing issues and the operational impact of ARIN stewardship policies, and, ARIN also has an educational role in helping the community to understand BCP including operational BCP as it relates to IP Addresses, ASNs, and DNS, ARIN has no role in dictating or driving operational practices. >> Most ARIN members seem to view ARIN as a distant regulatory >> agency to whom they must regularly burn incense and make >> sacrifices in order for the ARIN gods to bestow IP addresses >> upon the unworthy network operator. The result is that there >> is little participation by ARIN members in monitoring and >> governing ARIN. And therefore, ARIN does what it has always >> done without changing or innovating. > Huh? I can accept that most ARIN non-members with direct assignments see ARIN in this way, but, I find it _VERY_ hard to believe that is the viewpoint of the majority of ARIN members. It certainly is not the viewpoint of the members who read any of the things they signed when they joined. It certainly is not the viewpoint of the members who participate on PPML or attend ARIN meetings. If that is the viewpoint of the members who do not participate, then, that is unfortunate, and, certainly a dysfunctional role for those members. > Oh, that's was where I was going. Is that the case? If so, then there > is a dysfunction. > Yep. I'm not sure, however, what you can do to address the issue of misperception due to willful ignorance. If you can figure out how to solve that, perhaps we can next tackle the problems of the dysfunction in united States voting. > I want to make it clear that any lack of change or innovation is not > something that the staff has caused. (By design the staff is in reaction > mode.) The lack of change or innovation is the motivation for the > haunting question above. > I'm not sure ARIN has a change or innovation role. It is not unlikely that responsible stewardship includes a minimum of change and a preservation of stability and consistency. > PS - I think my response to Michael is not so much an opposing view, but > a slightly different emphasis in where improvements may lie. I really > don't think Michael is trying to "stick it to the staff." (I hope he's > not.) But a lot of times people confuse the ARIN staff with the ARIN > membership organization. > I rarely agree with Michael, but, I do respect him. I am quite confident that his intent is not to "stick it" to the ARIN staff. I think he comes from a genuine desire to improve things. We don't differ on that. We differ on how. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgp1PyVhlRbyS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
---Original Message--- > From: "Edward Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder > Sent: 24 Mar 2005 12:20:08 > > At 17:01 + 3/24/05, Andrew Dul wrote: > > >I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in the > >process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not getting the > >right stuff done... How do we fix this problem? How do we get more > >operators involved and active in the RIRs? > > In the spirit of cart and horse, it's not about getting more > operators involved in ARIN. It's about getting operators to use ARIN > as a resource in the proper way. (I'm addressing operators here as > this is NANOG.) I think its also about getting operators who aren't active participants in ARIN or NANOG to use the numbering resources in a "good" way. In my mind that probably means creating systems to reduce the misconfiguration issues which started this thread in the first place. > ARIN staff has begun work on documenting the registry service level > agreements, there was a presentation on this in October. There has > been little discussion on this by anyone since the presentation. If > WhoIs is out, reports fly on NANOG. But has anyone ever tried to > quantify what level of service is expected of ARIN's computing > facilities? Or an even better question...what should be in whois? There are some who feel that whois as we know it today should go away? Is that what the operators want? What if there were legal forces that created an environment where ARIN couldn't publish whois information. > >I think colocating 1 ARIN meeting/per year with Nanog in the fall has been a > >help. > > I would caution that "attending meetings" is neither a sign of > contribution nor a sign of progress. Don't get me wrong, making > meetings easier to attend is good, but we shouldn't attend meetings > because it is easy, fun or entertaining. I prefer to have fun at > home. There is something about being at the meeting that at least forces me to pay attention to part of what is going on. It is real easy to ignore email storms, but face to face interaction has value IMO. > >We could of course create a huge beuarcratcy with lots of people to study > the > >issues and make policy, but that hasn't been the way the Internet has > >developed and is counter to what many operators think is best for the > >Internet. That also requires money. Is that what people want? I don't > >think so, but I could be wrong. > > One the one hand, what built the Internet isn't what will maintain > it. A bureaucracy will be needed, the challenge isn't to prevent it > but to build the best one possible. True, I was trying to keep the flame-thrower set to low. It seems to me that anytime someone brings up the idea of "organizations" with structure/policy/rules/etc people get real nervous. There is an inherient "trust" issue that I think exists among operators. "Don't trust authority", but there has to be some set of rules that we will live by as the Internet becomes more & more critical to making everything work worldwide 24x7x365. Andrew
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
> I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in > the process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not > getting the right stuff done... How do we fix this problem? How do we > get more operators involved and active in the RIRs? > I'd like to point out that ARIN policy is _NOT_ controlled by ARIN membership. While the ARIN BOT has final approval/disapproval authority over proposed policies, this is akin to a presidential VETO. The ARIN AC has the primary role in policy development and responsibility for judging community consensus around policies. The ARIN AC is elected by the ARIN membership, but, ARIN membership is not a requirement to run for or be elected to the AC. Further, policy proposals may be made by any member of the community, not just ARIN members. I have been an active participant in ARIN for several years now, and, only for part of that time was I affiliated with an ARIN member. In fact, I ran for AC while I was not an ARIN member. I came within a few votes of being elected. I will run again this year. It is unlikely that I will be an ARIN member when I do. > I think colocating 1 ARIN meeting/per year with Nanog in the fall has > been a help. > Yes. Personally, I think ARIN is not all that dysfunctional. I think it is a lot less dysfunctional than IETF at this point. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me. pgpQguX9bOxGd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
At 17:01 + 3/24/05, Andrew Dul wrote: I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in the process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not getting the right stuff done... How do we fix this problem? How do we get more operators involved and active in the RIRs? In the spirit of cart and horse, it's not about getting more operators involved in ARIN. It's about getting operators to use ARIN as a resource in the proper way. (I'm addressing operators here as this is NANOG.) What do operators expect from ARIN? Most ARIN policies are centered on the administrative function of allocation of address space and AS numbers. Is that all there is? Are the existing policies all that are needed? Are there concerns about the live-in-the-network registry services like WhoIs, DNS, IRIS, routing registry? There are not many policy proposals (lame delegations, privacy concerns with WhoIs) in play covering operational considerations. ARIN staff has begun work on documenting the registry service level agreements, there was a presentation on this in October. There has been little discussion on this by anyone since the presentation. If WhoIs is out, reports fly on NANOG. But has anyone ever tried to quantify what level of service is expected of ARIN's computing facilities? If the staff is doing a good thing by documenting SLA's, then they should be encouraged to continue. There is routing security research work that would require the RIR's to issue certificates for use in route update validation. I would hope that someday, before anything goes live, there are operator-led tests involving support from ARIN. I think colocating 1 ARIN meeting/per year with Nanog in the fall has been a help. I would caution that "attending meetings" is neither a sign of contribution nor a sign of progress. Don't get me wrong, making meetings easier to attend is good, but we shouldn't attend meetings because it is easy, fun or entertaining. I prefer to have fun at home. ARIN isn't perfect but it could be a lot worse. In some ways I think the issue you describe is an industry wide problem. There are many different groups (RIRs, ICANN, IETF, Nanogs, etc...) and participating in all of them is a lot of effort, especially when most of us already have full-time jobs. Participating in all of them *is* a full-time job. ;) We could of course create a huge beuarcratcy with lots of people to study the issues and make policy, but that hasn't been the way the Internet has developed and is counter to what many operators think is best for the Internet. That also requires money. Is that what people want? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. One the one hand, what built the Internet isn't what will maintain it. A bureaucracy will be needed, the challenge isn't to prevent it but to build the best one possible. If ARIN goes unchecked it'll either be a weakened organization unable to serve the community (chaos ensues) or it will become an ogre, burdening the community (suffocation). It benefits operators to be involved, but the real trick is to realize what kind of involvement is needed. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Achieving total enlightenment has taught me that ignorance is bliss.
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
>From: Michael.Dillon >Date: Thu Mar 24 11:34:52 2005 > > > >> The other consequence is that the membership takes on the >> responsibility for ARIN's actions. Not the staff's actions, but >> ARIN's actions. If there is any dysfunction in ARIN, I suspect that >> it lay here. > >Yes, this is what I believe. The ARIN membership is more >passive than I think is healthy for the organization. >Thus, the organization is dysfunctional. I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in the process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not getting the right stuff done... How do we fix this problem? How do we get more operators involved and active in the RIRs? I think colocating 1 ARIN meeting/per year with Nanog in the fall has been a help. ARIN isn't perfect but it could be a lot worse. In some ways I think the issue you describe is an industry wide problem. There are many different groups (RIRs, ICANN, IETF, Nanogs, etc...) and participating in all of them is a lot of effort, especially when most of us already have full-time jobs. We could of course create a huge beuarcratcy with lots of people to study the issues and make policy, but that hasn't been the way the Internet has developed and is counter to what many operators think is best for the Internet. That also requires money. Is that what people want? I don't think so, but I could be wrong. Andrew (also a member of the ARIN Advisory Council)
Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
> The other consequence is that the membership takes on the > responsibility for ARIN's actions. Not the staff's actions, but > ARIN's actions. If there is any dysfunction in ARIN, I suspect that > it lay here. Yes, this is what I believe. The ARIN membership is more passive than I think is healthy for the organization. Thus, the organization is dysfunctional. > I want to make it clear that any lack of change or innovation is not > something that the staff has caused. I'm not knocking the staff. And I'm also not suggesting that people should pester the staff if they want ARIN to act on something. The Board of Trustees is responsible for instructing the staff to act, and therefore, ARIN members and others should either communicate directly with the Trustees, or through the public policy process. However, this public policy process is itself suffering as the result of extremely low involvement by ARIN members and by other interested parties. > But, the point is taken that ARIN would be much more "useful" to the > Internet if there was a change in participation. Point taken. My goal is to see more participation so that more diverse viewpoints are involved in the discussion. When there are only a handful of people making all the decisions, then it is much easier to make mistakes, to misunderstand the situation, and to be blind to possibilities. Democractic oversight and review cannot happen when the number of people involved is very low. > But a lot of times people confuse the ARIN staff > with the ARIN membership organization. That's why I didn't mention the staff and repeatedly pointed the finger at the apathy of the IP network operators who form ARIN's membership. --Michael Dillon
ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
At 15:17 + 3/24/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To begin with, nothing I have to say here has any bearing on the other IRR's. There is a reason there are 4-5 IRRs, each should be tuned to local sensibilities. However, ARIN today is a very dysfunctional organization. That is a very brash statement, one that is easily misinterpreted, one that may be simply wrong, or a statement that has an element of truth. The tone of this statement is why I am bothering to reply. First, distinguish between ARIN staff and ARIN membership. The staff at ARIN go to great lengths to respond to what the membership - and the public at large - ask ARIN to do. Note - NOT JUST membership. This is why there are open policy discussions, and open mics. (Sessions are webcast, the public policy mailing list is free to join.) Of course, membership does control the bounds of ARIN's response, including that of the staff, which is why there is also a member-only meeting on the last day of the conference. ARIN's staff is to fairly and equitably execute the policies that the membership organization has put into play. (I won't split hairs on the Advisory Council or the Board's roles, this can be learned by starting with ARIN's web site, http://www.arin.net.) This has two consequences. One is that it means the staff should not go and try to set the agenda for how ARIN operates. It it beneficial if the staff is involved to educate the members on the reality of running the registry. It the staff goes further, they are potentially disrupting an otherwise level playing field. The other consequence is that the membership takes on the responsibility for ARIN's actions. Not the staff's actions, but ARIN's actions. If there is any dysfunction in ARIN, I suspect that it lay here. I do not mean to infer that there is a problem, but I think this is where the largest misunderstanding of ARIN's role exists. I also do not demean the efforts of those who do take the time to participate, they are the ones heading in the "right" direction, no matter whether I agree with the opinions I hear. One question does haunt me about how the operations community views ARIN. Most ARIN policies are concerned with address allocation, reporting, and such. There are not many policies regarding the functional role ARIN plays in the Internet, the only one that leaps to mind is a lame delegation policy under discussion. The (haunting) question is whether the operations community feels that there should be operational policies put before ARIN. E.g., support for secure routing - when a concrete approach is defined that needs RIR input, should ARIN play? Is there a feeling within the operator community that ARIN is... Most ARIN members seem to view ARIN as a distant regulatory agency to whom they must regularly burn incense and make sacrifices in order for the ARIN gods to bestow IP addresses upon the unworthy network operator. The result is that there is little participation by ARIN members in monitoring and governing ARIN. And therefore, ARIN does what it has always done without changing or innovating. Oh, that's was where I was going. Is that the case? If so, then there is a dysfunction. I want to make it clear that any lack of change or innovation is not something that the staff has caused. (By design the staff is in reaction mode.) The lack of change or innovation is the motivation for the haunting question above. that ARIN carries a big stick like the FCC. The fault is not with the people involved in ARIN; the fault is with the majority of IP network operators who do not get involved with ARIN. I don't like "fault", it implies that there is something seriously broken. For the most part, things are working fairly well. Maybe at the operator level we see ways the world would be much better if we ruled things, but to the general public, the Internet is making things better. (Maybe for just some, but you have to admit overall things are better.) But, the point is taken that ARIN would be much more "useful" to the Internet if there was a change in participation. However, the improvement is not in the demographics of the participation, but in the content of the participation. If the content of the participation was well-balanced, then the demographics will follow. After all, if the policies ARIN membership were "perfect" now and into the future, there's no longer a need for the membership to steer the staff. The only thing the staff would have to do is execute the (benevolent, perfect) bureaucracy. ;) PS - I think my response to Michael is not so much an opposing view, but a slightly different emphasis in where improvements may lie. I really don't think Michael is trying to "stick it to the staff." (I hope he's not.) But a lot of times people confuse the ARIN staff with the ARIN membership organization. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lew
