wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Mon Sep 19 01:20:37 UTC 2011

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.  

Benson - 

By "ARIN-managed channels", do you mean via mechanisms that were 
established by those elected by the ARIN membership"?

I do indeed believe that efforts to change ARIN should be directed 
to through the channels that are overseen by member-elected ARIN 
Advisory Council and member-elected ARIN Board of Trustees. 

E.g., if you want to change ARIN policies, then there is the ARIN 
PDP (Policy Development Process) which is open to anyone and driven 
by the ARIN Advisory Council.  The process is well documented and 
allows input from the entire community including public polls of 
support for policy changes by both onsite remote participants of 
the Public Policy Meeting (PPM). Similarly, if you want to change 
the scope of ARIN's mission or fees or our operational tasking,
you can talk to the members of the Board of Trustees who are 
unpaid volunteers elected by the ARIN membership.

Engaging from "within the system" definitely means working via channels 
that operate or are defined by member-elected bodies of the system. I
don't think you could have any meaningful self-governance in any model
without this occurring (but would welcome examples of good models of 
governance if you have any counter-examples)  

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).  I believe that 
the community is must always be able to engage in multi-stakeholder 
self-governance discussions, and that does not imply ARIN having any 
unique role in facilitation.

Such a perspective (of welcoming discussion in any forum) is perfectly 
befitting my role at ARIN and not in conflict as you seem to imply, as 
my job is to make sure that the mission of community-led Internet number 
resource management is fulfilled, not the promotion any specific 
organizational model for accomplishing the task.


John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the NANOG mailing list