arin representation

Bob Evans bob at
Tue Mar 25 16:53:09 UTC 2014

I have just as many issues getting ARIN IP space as the next guy and
companies like Verizon. I do vote - yes half the time I am not sure,
exactly who I am voting for from just a bio and candidate paragraph.

As a result, I decided to attend ARIN meetings. I have been to about six
ARIN meetings in the last 24 months. Many coordinated with NANOG events.
Makes it convenient for ARIN to obtain more input. What I thought was an
isolated boondoggle meeting in Barbados turned out not to be. I went to
see if the discussion changed at all there or only one side was pushed by
big companies that can afford a boondoggle. It didn't change. I saw
representation on both sides of a discussion, sometimes they turned in to
arguments.  I was really surprised to see the ARIN staff work so much. I
thought they would waste time enjoying the island. I was surprised that I
had arrived before most of the staff. After the meeting almost everyone I
knew on the staff or elected left within 24 hours. I thought that was a
little to short for all the travel time and hours they put in for the
meeting to take place.

Like every governing body, it's easy to criticize it. However, if it were
some big monopoly with giant hidden agendas accomplished behind closed
doors, I wouldn't see networks like Verizon disappointed at an ARIN
meeting as their perspective was being over ruled by the majority. I have
seen this at a meeting when Verizon decided to go purchase IPv4 space in
the marketplace as they could not obtain what they tried to justify. It
would have been a huge chunk of what remained. The IPv4 marketplace grew
even more that week.

I like term limits for every governing body - except when it's a company I
built with my money.  :-)

Bob Evans
Fiber Internet Center

> On Mar 25, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Randy Bush <randy at> wrote:
>>> I do not agree with the characterization that "... we are ruled by
>>> self-perptuating monopolies which lack oversight and accountability",
>> when you have a governance committee which is composed of the governing,
>> not outsiders and governance experts, with no term limits, it would seem
>> hard to support that argument.
> Acknowledged, and I will provide that feedback to the Board.
> I have nothing against term limits (but I also did not champion them back
> when I was an elected member of the Board of Trustees.)  Many cite risk
> of losing well-qualified and experienced Board members right when they
> are most productive as the counter-argument.  This is probably a fairly
> prolonged discussion, and the ARIN membership also needs to weigh in...
>>> - Simple terms and conditions for contracts with registries
>>> - Membership organizations for registries with term limits
>>>  for Board and advisory bodies
>>> - Board diversity (meaning real world users)
>>> - Competitive registries
>>> - ...
>> i pretty much agree that arin should do these.  except ...
>> iff we could get reasonable governance, i am not sure we need multiple
>> rirs.  after all, the registries were just supposed to be bookkeepers.
>> but i agree that competition is a good method of injecting some reality
>> into the physics in the absense of other means.
>> but i eagerly await the simplification of arin's ts&cs.  and get rid of
>> being able to change them unilateraly and arbitrarily, and get rid the
>> silly game about legacy rights, and a whole bunch of us might join.
> I will note that this discussion is presently on nanog, and I am not
> certain that all of the ARIN Board members subscribe...  I will forward
> your message to the Board, but would you prefer to take this to one of
> the ARIN lists, or have a us setup a distinct list for this purpose,
> or something else?
> Thanks!
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO

More information about the NANOG mailing list