ARIN board accountability to network operators (was: RE: [arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal)
randy at psg.com
Thu Mar 27 21:27:26 UTC 2014
i think your attemt to move the discussion to the arin ppml list
exemplifies one core of the problem. this is not about address policy,
but arin thinks of itelf as a regulator not a registry.
contrast with the ripe community and the ncc, which is not nirvana but
is a hell of a lot better. among other key differences, the ncc is
engaged with the community through technical and business working
e.g. the database working group covers what you think of as whois and
the routing registry. the wg developed the darned irr definition and
continues to evolve it. consequence? the irr is actively used in two
regions in the world, europe and japan (which likes anything ocd:-).
the routing wg works with the ops to develop routing technology such as
route flap damping. there is a reason that serious ops attend ripe
meetings. yes, a whole lot of folk with enable are engaged.
for years there has been a wg on the global layer nine issues.
the dns wg deals with reverse delegation, root server ops, etc. and
guess what, all the dns heavy techs and ops are engaged.
there is a wg for discussing what services the ncc offers. the recent
simplification and opening of services to legacy and PI holders happened
in the ncc services wg, it was about services not addressing policy.
and this is aside from daniel's global measurement empire. not sure it
is a registry's job to do this, but it is a serious contribution to the
the ncc is engaged with its community on the subhects that actually
interest operators and affect our daily lives.
there is nothing of interest at an arin meeting, a bunch of junior
wannabe regulators and vigilantes making an embarrassing mess. i've
even taken to skipping nanog, if ras talks i can watch the recording.
all the cool kids will be in warsaw. ops vote with our feet.
More information about the NANOG