Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit pricing
On Sep 22, 2011, at 1:54 AM, PC wrote: An optimal solution would be a tiered system where the adjusted price only applies to traffic units over the price tier threshold and not retroactively to all traffic units. Optimal for whom? Also, I doubt you can make that claim as you do not know the costs or other business conditions of every deal. -- TTFN, patrick On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Brandon Galbraith brandon.galbra...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote: If you have a lot more, you can negotiate tiers. E.g. The first 10G is $X/Mbps, but if you hit 20G, you get charged 2 * $Y (where Y X, obviously). This can lead to interesting situations where 19 Gbps costs more than 20 Gbps. But dems da breaks. -- TTFN, patrick I knew of a place that used to push fake traffic over a link to ensure they were in the cheaper (higher) tier. Who knew business rules overriding engineering could result in non-optimal situations. -- Brandon Galbraith US Voice: 630.492.0464
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network -- ENOUGH ALREADY!
My apologies to all. I was hoping the conversation would be of an operational nature. I deleted the vast majority of messages in the thread as they weren't relevant. If anyone wants I can post smaller scope subject threads. Or a summary of the operationally relevant bits in the thread. Bret Palsson b...@getjive.com wrote: Thank you! 112 Emails on this subject, I am sick of it.
RE: vyatta for bgp
Andreas Echavez [mailto:andr...@livejournalinc.com] originally wrote: Ultimately, the network is as reliable as you build it. With software, it's much cheaper to divide and scale horizontally. Hardware devices are expensive and usually horizontal scalability never happens. So in reality, an enterprise blows 100k on two routers, they both flop because of some firmware bug, and you're down. With this in mind, I am keen to understand how many implementations of packages such as Quagga and Zebra that the group use. With the likes of Vyatta being discussed, I am keen to see if products such as Quagga as still regularly used as it used to be. Thoughts welcome! Kind regards, /P.
Re: Internet mauled by bears
On 20/09/11 7:15 AM, Jason Baugher wrote: Horses are okay, but you have to tie things to the wire so they can see it. They're too dumb to remember where it is, apparently. This has nothing to do with the horse's ability to see or remember where the fence it. It has to do with the value (both financial and emotional) the owner places on the animal, and the ensuing costs if it breaks the fence. Horses can get hurt quite easily, vet bills can run into hundreds or thousands of dollars quite quickly. Most horse owners will spend far more than the replacement cost of the animal in vet bills and husbandry to heal it when it gets injured, because the animal has a member of the household status in their lives and can't easily be replaced by a similar animal. So they flag wire fences to help the horse avoid getting hurt. Then there's liability. In many states, if a horse gets out on the road and gets hit, the horse owner is liable for the damages to the car and occupants. If someone in the car is injured or killed (likely if the horse is hit head-on and comes thru the windshield) the liability costs can be significant, run into millions of dollars. For this reason, many equestrian insurance policies require that electric fencing be flagged. Other livestock aren't as likely to cause fatal injuries to car occupants if they are hit, because the animal's body is lower to the road, less likely to come over the hood. jc
Re: Internet mauled by bears
while we still lived on the farm, two vallies away was gordon, who ran a dairy farm, milked, and delivered around coos and curry counties twice a week. he told of deciding to go down to the big city, san francisco. so he put good clothes on and packed a suitcase and headed south (a long day drive). he said that when he got to san francisco, he was amazed that people were walking around in farm coveralls like those he left at home. all the country boy engineers here make me think of gordon's story. randy
Re: Internet mauled by bears
On 9/22/2011 9:58 AM, JC Dill wrote: On 20/09/11 7:15 AM, Jason Baugher wrote: Horses are okay, but you have to tie things to the wire so they can see it. They're too dumb to remember where it is, apparently. This has nothing to do with the horse's ability to see or remember where the fence it. It has to do with the value (both financial and emotional) the owner places on the animal, and the ensuing costs if it breaks the fence. Horses can get hurt quite easily, vet bills can run into hundreds or thousands of dollars quite quickly. Most horse owners will spend far more than the replacement cost of the animal in vet bills and husbandry to heal it when it gets injured, because the animal has a member of the household status in their lives and can't easily be replaced by a similar animal. So they flag wire fences to help the horse avoid getting hurt. Then there's liability. In many states, if a horse gets out on the road and gets hit, the horse owner is liable for the damages to the car and occupants. If someone in the car is injured or killed (likely if the horse is hit head-on and comes thru the windshield) the liability costs can be significant, run into millions of dollars. For this reason, many equestrian insurance policies require that electric fencing be flagged. Other livestock aren't as likely to cause fatal injuries to car occupants if they are hit, because the animal's body is lower to the road, less likely to come over the hood. jc That's interesting to know. It's also interesting to note that other animals, with the possible exception of sheep, will not run through an electric fence once they know that it is there. Sheep do it intentionally.
Re: Internet mauled by bears
On 9/22/2011 8:31 AM, Jason Baugher wrote: On 9/22/2011 9:58 AM, JC Dill wrote: [re: horses] Other livestock aren't as likely to cause fatal injuries to car occupants if they are hit, because the animal's body is lower to the road, less likely to come over the hood. That's interesting to know. It's also interesting to note that other animals, with the possible exception of sheep, will not run through an electric fence once they know that it is there. Sheep do it intentionally. Domesticated sheep are born with vague intelligence, but this is gone by the time they are adults. There can be no speaking of intention, because they are incapable. A lamb bounces around, playful and amusing, and if it sees a fence, it *stops* short of the fence. Sheep will run straight into the fence, and snap their necks, if at the front of a herd. Been there. Seen it. Sheep are stupid. Really. -- ...most of us have as our claim to fame the ability to talk to inanimate objects and convince them they want to listen to us. Valdis Kletnieks
RE: Internet mauled by bears
Can we take this offline? I don't believe livestock behavior patterns have much operational content. Thanks, Chuck -Original Message- From: Jason Baugher [mailto:ja...@thebaughers.com] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 11:31 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Internet mauled by bears On 9/22/2011 9:58 AM, JC Dill wrote: On 20/09/11 7:15 AM, Jason Baugher wrote: Horses are okay, but you have to tie things to the wire so they can see it. They're too dumb to remember where it is, apparently. This has nothing to do with the horse's ability to see or remember where the fence it. It has to do with the value (both financial and emotional) the owner places on the animal, and the ensuing costs if it breaks the fence. Horses can get hurt quite easily, vet bills can run into hundreds or thousands of dollars quite quickly. Most horse owners will spend far more than the replacement cost of the animal in vet bills and husbandry to heal it when it gets injured, because the animal has a member of the household status in their lives and can't easily be replaced by a similar animal. So they flag wire fences to help the horse avoid getting hurt. Then there's liability. In many states, if a horse gets out on the road and gets hit, the horse owner is liable for the damages to the car and occupants. If someone in the car is injured or killed (likely if the horse is hit head-on and comes thru the windshield) the liability costs can be significant, run into millions of dollars. For this reason, many equestrian insurance policies require that electric fencing be flagged. Other livestock aren't as likely to cause fatal injuries to car occupants if they are hit, because the animal's body is lower to the road, less likely to come over the hood. jc That's interesting to know. It's also interesting to note that other animals, with the possible exception of sheep, will not run through an electric fence once they know that it is there. Sheep do it intentionally.
PBB v. PBB-TE
Could I get some feedback from the list on PBB (802.1ah) v. PBB-TE (802.1Qay). Very specifically around: 1. PBB-TE's Customer side MAC learning and management capabilities. 2. PBB's direct or augmented ability to handle broadcast floods. Also, any recommendations from the list on strong PBB-TE vendors would be appreciated. Thanks for your feedback in advance. Best Regards, Babak -- Babak Pasdar President CEO | Certified Ethical Hacker Bat Blue Networks (p) 212.461.3322 x3005 | (f) 212.584. | www.BatBlue.com Bat Blue's AS: 25885 | BGP Policy | Peering Policy Watch: Cloud Security Video | Cloud Network Video The Official WiFi Provider for ESPN's X Games
Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit pricing
On Sep 22, 12:54 am, PC paul4...@gmail.com wrote: An optimal solution would be a tiered system where the adjusted price only applies to traffic units over the price tier threshold and not retroactively to all traffic units. I have seen a more optimal scheme about 15 years ago. Pricing was a smooth function, but it was for software licensing, not networking. As I recall, their scheme went something like: invoice_amount = some_constant * (quantity)^0.75 This seemed smart to me. It gave the customer incentives to invest more, but also got rid of silly discontinuities that would cause irrational customer and salesperson behavior. Has anyone seen something similar in the service provider world? All I ever see are arbitrary step functions.
Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit pricing
I like thisone! As I recall, their scheme went something like: invoice_amount = some_constant * (quantity)^0.75 -- //fredan
Re: vyatta for bgp
On 09/22/2011 05:37 AM, Pierce Lynch wrote: Andreas Echavez [mailto:andr...@livejournalinc.com] originally wrote: Ultimately, the network is as reliable as you build it. With software, it's much cheaper to divide and scale horizontally. Hardware devices are expensive and usually horizontal scalability never happens. So in reality, an enterprise blows 100k on two routers, they both flop because of some firmware bug, and you're down. With this in mind, I am keen to understand how many implementations of packages such as Quagga and Zebra that the group use. With the likes of Vyatta being discussed, I am keen to see if products such as Quagga as still regularly used as it used to be. I think that the original/upstream versions are out of date as compared to the one maintained by Vyatta. Or Google (for their MPLS processing needs). See http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/abstracts.php?pt=MTYzNSZuYW5vZzUwnm=nanog50 http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/abstracts.php?pt=MTYzNSZuYW5vZzUwnm=nanog50 Thoughts welcome! Kind regards, /P.
Re: vyatta for bgp
On 9/22/11 11:38 , Charles N Wyble wrote: On 09/22/2011 05:37 AM, Pierce Lynch wrote: Andreas Echavez [mailto:andr...@livejournalinc.com] originally wrote: Ultimately, the network is as reliable as you build it. With software, it's much cheaper to divide and scale horizontally. Hardware devices are expensive and usually horizontal scalability never happens. So in reality, an enterprise blows 100k on two routers, they both flop because of some firmware bug, and you're down. With this in mind, I am keen to understand how many implementations of packages such as Quagga and Zebra that the group use. With the likes of Vyatta being discussed, I am keen to see if products such as Quagga as still regularly used as it used to be. I think that the original/upstream versions are out of date as compared to the one maintained by Vyatta. Or Google (for their MPLS processing needs). See http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/abstracts.php?pt=MTYzNSZuYW5vZzUwnm=nanog50 http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog50/abstracts.php?pt=MTYzNSZuYW5vZzUwnm=nanog50 We are actively supporting Quagga. We currently have a git repo at code.google.com with some BGP multipath updates, and are working with ISC to provide SQA on that branch. Hopefully more features will be forthcoming. Search quagga-dev if you're interested in more details. Vyatta has done a lot of great work on Quagga, as have many others. It would be nice to see all the various useful branches merged into a cherry-picked mainline that would simplify the Quagga development community's lives considerably. -Scott
yahoo mail admin anywhere?
We have a situation where we/many of our customers are unable to receive email from Yahoo due to broken DNS, which really doesn't look broken. As I don't have error numbers, just undeliverables, automated support is not useful. Off-list is fine, but posting a real honest-to-gosh-real-life contact to NANOG would probably be awesome to more people than just me ;-) Thanks! Randal Kohutek, Data102 ran...@data102.com rkohu...@gmail.com because the above probably won't work! 719-387-x1337
Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit pricing
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:31:34AM -0700, Ryan Malayter wrote: On Sep 22, 12:54 am, PC paul4...@gmail.com wrote: An optimal solution would be a tiered system where the adjusted price only applies to traffic units over the price tier threshold and not retroactively to all traffic units. I have seen a more optimal scheme about 15 years ago. Pricing was a smooth function, but it was for software licensing, not networking. As I recall, their scheme went something like: invoice_amount = some_constant * (quantity)^0.75 This seemed smart to me. It gave the customer incentives to invest more, but also got rid of silly discontinuities that would cause irrational customer and salesperson behavior. Has anyone seen something similar in the service provider world? All I ever see are arbitrary step functions. I actually had this discussion quite recently with The Powers, as we have some fairly interesting issues with the results of our newly adjusted pricing steps. The rationale behind sticking with the steps was everyone else does it that way, so when customers are making comparisons they need to be able to make a meaningful comparison and continuous functions are too hard. Given that we're not a market leader in network traffic, I somewhat see the logic behind the first, and given the average customer has trouble understanding that XGB per month at $Y/GB = $X*Y, I totally see the point on the second, *in general*. However, if you want it, ask for it. Go so far as to say that you'll only consider pricing functions that are continuous, and therefore will be making an apples-for-apples comparison. You'll exclude a lot of the market, simply because the contracts can't be modified like that or the billing system can't handle it, but I'm fairly confident that the data to create such a function exists at every sanely-run network provider. - Matt -- For once, Microsoft wasn't exaggerating when they named it the 'Jet Engine' -- your data's the seagull. -- Chris Adams
Re: Internet mauled by bears
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:55:04 EDT, Chuck Church said: Can we take this offline? I don't believe livestock behavior patterns have much operational content. What's the mathematical difference between modelling a sheep stampede and modelling a slashdotting? The word is sheeple for a reason... pgpkVvnByCr6R.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net writes: Hi, Paul. sorry for the delay. i'll include the entirety of this short thread. 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.) ... as the chairman of the 2011 ARIN NomCom, i hope you'll explain further, either publically here, or privately, as you prefer. My understanding is that the NomCom consists of 7 people. Of those, 2 come from the board and 2 come from the AC. Together, those 4 members of the existing establishment choose the remaining 3 NomCom members. In the past, there was at least the appearance of random selection for some of the NomCom members. But in any case, due to its composition, the NomCom has the appearance of a body biased in favor of the existing establishment. Please correct any misunderstanding that I might have. Otherwise, I encourage an update to the structure of future NomComs. can you explain what it was about prior nomcoms that gave the appearance of random selection? to the best of my knowledge, including knowledge i gained as chair of the 2008 ARIN NomCom, we've been doing it the same way for quite a while now. so i do not understand your reference to at least the appearance of random selection in the past. since ARIN members-in-good-standing elect the board and advisory council, and also make up three of the four seats of the nominations committee, i do not share your view on bias as expressed above. i think it shows that ARIN is clearly governed by its members -- which is as it should be. by your two references to the existing establishment do you intend to imply that ARIN's members don't currently have the establishment that they want, or that they could not change this establishment if they wanted to, or that ARIN's members are themselves part of the existing establishment in some way that's bad? ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members. if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your reasoning and your proposed alternative. -- Paul Vixie KI6YSY
Re: Verizon / FiOS network
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch r...@linux.com wrote: Hi, Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some semblance of destination address, port, protocol... just sayin'! -chris (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on)
Re: Verizon / FiOS network
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch r...@linux.com wrote: Hi, Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network? Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone. it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some semblance of destination address, port, protocol... just sayin'! -chris (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on) HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443. Sample IP: 146.115.38.21
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
Hi, Paul. On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: My understanding is that the NomCom consists of 7 people. Of those, 2 come from the board and 2 come from the AC. Together, those 4 members of the existing establishment choose the remaining 3 NomCom members. In the past, there was at least the appearance of random selection for some of the NomCom members. But in any case, due to its composition, the NomCom has the appearance of a body biased in favor of the existing establishment. Please correct any misunderstanding that I might have. Otherwise, I encourage an update to the structure of future NomComs. can you explain what it was about prior nomcoms that gave the appearance of random selection? to the best of my knowledge, including knowledge i gained as chair of the 2008 ARIN NomCom, we've been doing it the same way for quite a while now. so i do not understand your reference to at least the appearance of random selection in the past. Earlier this year I received the following from ARIN member services: This year the NomCom charter was changed by the Board. In the past the 3 Member volunteers were selected at random. This year the 3 volunteers will be chosen by the 4 current members of the NomCom (2 from the Board 2 from the AC) The above quote was sent to me in response to a query I made, inquiring how the NomCom would be chosen in 2011. It is consistent with what I was told in 2010, when I was chosen to be part of the 2010 NomCom. At that time I was told that Member volunteers were chosen randomly. During my NomCom tenure, however, it was suggested to me privately that there was very little randomness involved in the selection process; I was told that individuals were specifically chosen for NomCom. I don't know what to make of this disparity, honestly, which is why I referenced the appearance of random selection. since ARIN members-in-good-standing elect the board and advisory council, and also make up three of the four seats of the nominations committee, i do not share your view on bias as expressed above. i think it shows that ARIN is clearly governed by its members -- which is as it should be. by your two references to the existing establishment do you intend to imply that ARIN's members don't currently have the establishment that they want, or that they could not change this establishment if they wanted to, or that ARIN's members are themselves part of the existing establishment in some way that's bad? The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts. It chooses the candidates that the membership will see. The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias. I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates. But it seems like an easy enough thing to avoid. As for my use of existing establishment: I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful. ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members. if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your reasoning and your proposed alternative. One of ARIN's governance strengths is the availability of petition at many steps, including for candidates rejected by the NomCom. Likewise, as you noted, leaders are elected by the membership. For these reasons I previously noted that ARIN has a pretty good governance structure and I continue to think so. It could be improved by increased member involvement, as well as broader involvement from the community. (For instance, policy petitions should include responses from the entire affected community, not just PPML.) But my criticisms should be interpreted as constructive, and are not an indictment of the whole approach. Cheers, -Benson
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500 Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: Earlier this year I received the following from ARIN member services: This year the NomCom charter was changed by the Board. In the past the 3 Member volunteers were selected at random. This year the 3 volunteers will be chosen by the 4 current members of the NomCom (2 from the Board 2 from the AC) yow. i should have remembered this, you'd think. The above quote was sent to me in response to a query I made, inquiring how the NomCom would be chosen in 2011. It is consistent with what I was told in 2010, when I was chosen to be part of the 2010 NomCom. At that time I was told that Member volunteers were chosen randomly. During my NomCom tenure, however, it was suggested to me privately that there was very little randomness involved in the selection process; I was told that individuals were specifically chosen for NomCom. I don't know what to make of this disparity, honestly, which is why I referenced the appearance of random selection. suggested to you privately by arin staff? The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts. It chooses the candidates that the membership will see. The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias. I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates. But it seems like an easy enough thing to avoid. you seem to mean that the appearance of bias would be easy to avoid, then. As for my use of existing establishment: I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful. i think our participation level in elections is quite high and i'll ask for details and see them published here. ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members. if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your reasoning and your proposed alternative. One of ARIN's governance strengths is the availability of petition at many steps, including for candidates rejected by the NomCom. Likewise, as you noted, leaders are elected by the membership. For these reasons I previously noted that ARIN has a pretty good governance structure and I continue to think so. It could be improved by increased member involvement, as well as broader involvement from the community. (For instance, policy petitions should include responses from the entire affected community, not just PPML.) But my criticisms should be interpreted as constructive, and are not an indictment of the whole approach. thanks for saying so. -- Paul Vixie
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
Paul (and NANOG readers, because Paul actually already knows this), With my parliamentarian hat on: A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum number of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates for election. it should never be a gating function; it is an important safeguard to allow the nomination of qualified individuals outside the nominating committee and from the floor before votes are cast. In the corporate world, nominating committees, for good or bad, have become instruments for rigorously constraining the slate of candidates for executive offices. The practice has become so common and widespread that many assume it is proper in all situations (much in the same way that the US Congress' standing rules modifying the table motion have caused the public to believe incorrectly that tabling an issue is the same as postponing it indefinitely; tabling correctly means the issue will be moved to a later time in the current meeting. Although organizations may decide for themselves how a nominating committee will operate, it is inconsistent with the general principles of parliamentary process -- whichever standard you choose, Robert's, Sturgis, or another -- for all candidates to be forced to pass through the gauntlet of the nominating committee. In a perfect world, the nominating committee assists with preparations for elections, finds suitable candidates (at least one for every vacant position) and possibly identifies and cultivates future leadership for the organization. More than my two cents' worth, but I got involved in parliamentary process exactly because of misunderstandings and misapplications like what I think may be happening here. I'll be happy to explain further, if needed or desired. I now return you to the more traditional discussions for this mailing list. ;-) Jim -- James N. Duncan, CISSP Manager, Juniper Networks Security Incident Response Team (Juniper SIRT) E-mail: jdun...@juniper.net Mobile: +1 919 608 0748 PGP key fingerprint: E09E EA55 DA28 1399 75EB D6A2 7092 9A9C 6DC3 1821 - Original Message - From: Paul Vixie [mailto:vi...@isc.org] Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 12:57 AM To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500 Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote: Earlier this year I received the following from ARIN member services: This year the NomCom charter was changed by the Board. In the past the 3 Member volunteers were selected at random. This year the 3 volunteers will be chosen by the 4 current members of the NomCom (2 from the Board 2 from the AC) yow. i should have remembered this, you'd think. The above quote was sent to me in response to a query I made, inquiring how the NomCom would be chosen in 2011. It is consistent with what I was told in 2010, when I was chosen to be part of the 2010 NomCom. At that time I was told that Member volunteers were chosen randomly. During my NomCom tenure, however, it was suggested to me privately that there was very little randomness involved in the selection process; I was told that individuals were specifically chosen for NomCom. I don't know what to make of this disparity, honestly, which is why I referenced the appearance of random selection. suggested to you privately by arin staff? The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts. It chooses the candidates that the membership will see. The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias. I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates. But it seems like an easy enough thing to avoid. you seem to mean that the appearance of bias would be easy to avoid, then. As for my use of existing establishment: I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful. i think our participation level in elections is quite high and i'll ask for details and see them published here. ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members. if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your reasoning and your proposed alternative. One of ARIN's governance strengths is the availability of petition at many steps, including for candidates rejected by the NomCom. Likewise, as you noted, leaders are elected by the membership. For these reasons I
