On Sep 18, 2011, at 21:20, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:
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.
... <a bunch of stuff that encourages people to use ARIN-managed channels> ...
For what it's worth, I agree that ARIN has a pretty good governance structure. (With the exception of NomCom this year, which is shamefully unbalanced.) That hasn't stopped it from becoming an ideological anachronism. Or from becoming interested in self-preservation. It's only natural for such organizations. And despite this, I do encourage folks here to participate in PPML. It's the only way ARIN will get more perspective. (Though, admittedly it is a bit like banging ones own head against the wall...)
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).
Are you suggesting that ARIN policy or procedure might change as a direct result of discussion in e.g. IGF? Or perhaps here on NANOG? Cheers, -Benson