On Mar 25, 2014, at 5:04 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> 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 ARIN