wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network
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.
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.
President and CEO
More information about the NANOG