jared at puck.nether.net
Fri Mar 28 20:29:17 UTC 2014
On Mar 25, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Bob Evans <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:
> 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. :-)
I've seen term limits significantly harm organizations due to the churn that
can happen as a result. Folks aren't as invested long-term as a consequence.
This can clearly cut both ways resulting in some positions being protected longer
than they should, or allowing the entire "vote the bums out" crowd to cause
unstable behavior afterwards.
I believe there are things that ARIN could do better but don't have
the time to invest in the process to correct these. I do take time
to lobby those who I know that are involved in the process and express
my opinion of the ways that ARIN could do a better service for the community.
More information about the NANOG