arin and ops fora (was Re: AltDB?)

Lee Howard lee at
Sun Jan 9 10:40:25 CST 2011

> 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
> 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
> directly to ARIN operations. For example, if the NANOG community were to
> say "BCOP is to use IETF-defined standards for publishing and accessing
> registration data", I'd imagine ARIN might (reasonably) disagree and
continue down the
> RWS path.

I don't think of BCOP as a subset of NANOG, but as an overlap of several
including NANOG and ARIN.  Certainly ARIN is not bound by BCOP's findings
one would be), but the AC and Board would take seriously a
best practice.  I doubt ARIN would be surprised by any BCOP finding, given
involvement of several ARIN AC members in it.

> 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.

Are you saying ARIN needs an ombudsman function to make sure the Board
delay implementation of things the community wants while it figures out
whether doing
such things will prevent it from doing other things the community wants?

I don't understand how this bee-watcher-watcher thing works.


More information about the NANOG mailing list