Exactly right John. I think the term "owned" is a problem here. It seems to me that the terms would correctly be "holder" or who the address space was issued to or "user" being the end user using that space. Wouldn't all of the holders be ARIN members unless grandfathered in? Steven Naslund Chicago IL -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:36 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: arin representation On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:53 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

two questions:

o of the /24s in the arin region, what percentage are owned by arin members?

Randy - Happy to generate these - two questions for clarity. 1) Should we expand /16's and /8's into the corresponding number of /24's ? (or do you only want those blocks issued originally as /24's to be counted) 2) In terms of categories, we could go strictly with /24's held by ARIN members versus /24's held by non-members (and resulting percentages); note that would be predominantly ISPs since end-users assignments from ARIN are unlikely to be members unless they specifically opted to join. Alternatively, we could provide counts /24's under RSA, /24's under LRSA, and /24's legacy-no-agreement as the three categories of counts desired (and each percentage of the total) So, based on above, would you prefer the /24 space statistics as asked (member/non-member) or rsa/lrsa/legacy-no-agreement?

o of the address holders in the arin region, what percentage are arin members?

Will do. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

Sorry Randy, I was not trying to criticize your terminology. I was just wondering about the question trying to be answered here. The holder of an address space and the end user of the address space are two really different things. The holder is often an ARIN member or grandfathered in and an end user (including most ISP customers) are not going to be ARIN members. I know that you and most of the other on here know that they are not "owners" of the space. I was just trying to figure out if your term "owner" refers to the holder of the space or the user of the space. Not trying to make a political statement. I apologize if I gave you the impression that I disapproved of your question. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:52 PM To: Naslund, Steve Cc: John Curran; North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: arin representation

I think the term "owned" is a problem here.

sorry not to get your religious icons correctly. full refund below. jeezus! get a life. randy

No problem. One of the risks in text communication. I guess the usefulness of the measurement would be in what the original question is? If we knew more about what the membership / non-membership question was about it would be easier. I guess if we were really trying to figure out how much address space is within ARIN member "control", just the holder would be enough to know. For example, you could say the X% of space is being used by ARIN members and X% is in use by legacy users. Since the holder could change or revoke access to the space by an end user I guess we could say they control it. For other questions it might be more important to know who is "using" an address space. Like how much space is issued to end users directly by ARIN vs provided to them by service providers. The two types would have very different rules regarding reallocation and such. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:10 PM To: Naslund, Steve Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: arin representation sorry steve. was not chasing down the tree. not clear what a useful measurement would be. randy

He is definitely in the authoritative hands :) Steve -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 11:16 PM To: Naslund, Steve Cc: Randy Bush; North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: arin representation Steve - Thanks for the reminder; terminology aside, I think we have a good understanding of Randy's request for statistics. We'll put these together asap. /John

On Mar 24, 2014, at 11:58 AM, "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com> wrote:

Sorry Randy,

I was not trying to criticize your terminology. I was just wondering about the question trying to be answered here. The holder of an address space and the end user of the address space are two really different things. The holder is often an ARIN member or grandfathered in and an end user (including most ISP customers) are not going to be ARIN members. I know that you and most of the other on here know that they are not "owners" of the space. I was just trying to figure out if your term "owner" refers to the holder of the space or the user of the space. Not trying to make a political statement.

I apologize if I gave you the impression that I disapproved of your question.

Steve

-----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:52 PM To: Naslund, Steve Cc: John Curran; North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: arin representation

...

I think the term "owned" is a problem here.

sorry not to get your religious icons correctly. full refund below.

jeezus! get a life.

randy

Unless I misremember, everyone who receives a direct allocation from ARIN and signs an RSA is automatically a member. It's not clear to me what "owner of a /24 network" means in that context. (I don't recall if signing an LRSA in and of itself also makes one a member, since by the time we had signed an LRSA, we had long since received our direct IPv6 allocation under an RSA.) But perhaps Randy is looking for the number of /24 equivalents allocated to legacy resource holders who haven't also received an IPv6 direct allocation or other IPv4 direct allocation under an RSA? Scott On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com>wrote:

Exactly right John. I think the term "owned" is a problem here.

It seems to me that the terms would correctly be "holder" or who the address space was issued to or "user" being the end user using that space.

Wouldn't all of the holders be ARIN members unless grandfathered in?

Steven Naslund Chicago IL

-----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:36 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: arin representation

On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:53 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

...

two questions:

o of the /24s in the arin region, what percentage are owned by arin members?

Randy -

Happy to generate these - two questions for clarity.

1) Should we expand /16's and /8's into the corresponding number of /24's ? (or do you only want those blocks issued originally as /24's to be counted)

2) In terms of categories, we could go strictly with /24's held by ARIN members versus /24's held by non-members (and resulting percentages); note that would be predominantly ISPs since end-users assignments from ARIN are unlikely to be members unless they specifically opted to join. Alternatively, we could provide counts /24's under RSA, /24's under LRSA, and /24's legacy-no-agreement as the three categories of counts desired (and each percentage of the total)

So, based on above, would you prefer the /24 space statistics as asked (member/non-member) or rsa/lrsa/legacy-no-agreement?

...

o of the address holders in the arin region, what percentage are arin members?

Will do.

Thanks! /John

John Curran President and CEO ARIN

On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:59 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

...

But perhaps Randy is looking for the number of /24 equivalents allocated to legacy resource holders who haven't also received an IPv6 direct allocation or other IPv4 direct allocation under an RSA?

what percentage of address space is held by members and what percentage by non-members (lrsa-only is part of the latter)?

what percentage of holding organizations are members and what percentage not members (lrsa-only being part of the latter)?

i thought this was simple.

Randy - It is... we'll put these together. Folks who wish to discuss ARIN address holders and members, please find an ARIN mailing list (such as ppml) Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

john: i appreciate the numbers. thanks! and, btw, it has always been a pleasure to work with arin staff.

Total number of /24s of space directly registered in ARIN's database = 6,644,175 (101.38 /8 equivalents)

Of those: 2,808,621 /24s of space (42.3%) are registered to ARIN members (42.86 /8 equivalents)

Total number of Org IDs with directly registered IPv4 addresses = 26,148

Of those: 4,520 (17%) are ARIN members

the arin membership consists of 17% of the address holding organizations in the region (plus a few folk who buy membership), and they hold 42% of the address space. so the 17% (give or take) elect the board [0], and the board, through a complex inside-controlled process [1], sets policy for the other unrepresented 83%. and the board and policy wonks set policy and contracts, among other things the lrsa and rsa, which place serious barriers to becoming a member, such as clauses with arin being able to unilaterally change ts&cs arbitrarily. [2] [3] and i know the "anyone can partiipate" theory. but in fact extremely few participate, and arin pays many of the policy wonks to fly around the world business class and spread the arin regulatory religion. no other rir does this. and this is a representative bottom up organization claiming legitimacy in the global arena? i would be interested in similar numbers for other rirs, and whether their service agreements are similarly onerous. (and i believe that ripe is actively tearing down barriers to participation). randy -- [0] as you know, there has been at least one occasion where the board election has been rigged. at your encouragement, i once submitted the whole nomination rig-a-marole to the nomcom. my name did not appear on the ballot, which i found out only when the ballot came out, and was never even viven a reason. [1] an outsider can not make a proposal that is not modifiably by an 'advisory' committee. and most are revised. [smell same problem as nomcom?] [2] who would sign such an agreement except under threat of not having the resources necessary to run their business? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_to_entry

Randy, I am not sure I understand the argument here. If you think that ARIN is not representing the address space holders in proper fashion, how would we suggest correcting that? If an address holder does not become a member (which is fairly easy to do if you care enough) how would we even know what their concerns or feelings are? It is like any electoral process, if you choose not to represent yourself it is hard to complain about the outcomes. ARIN does work under a contract so I would assume if there were serious concerns about their structure or conduct, there is some oversight being conducted. My earlier comments regarding legacy space holders and the number of address space holders goes to the heart of using those stats to make your assertion. First of all, the number of /24s is not proportional to the total number of members Whether I hold 50 or 1000 /24s, I am still one member. I would assumes that holders of large amounts of space (like service providers) are more likely to be members than the entity that holds one smaller allocation for their business purposes. Given that the US Gov't holds a vast amount of the legacy space skews the results a lot. They might or might not be a "member" but they certainly hold a lot of influence in ARINs operation as the one who controls the contract. If ARIN was to cross them the wrong way, they might not be holding that contract very long. The reality of the Internet is that much of the policy and standard making comes from a small very technical minority of its users like us. Most users of the Internet could care less about numbering policy and RFCs because they don't feel the impact of it, they just use and enjoy the technology. They just don't care about the wizards behind the curtain. Issues that look important inside our fishbowl do not mean much to the outside world. Just ask every person that uses an IP address where they came from an see how many know or care. If the general public was to feel much pain in the process they might ask more questions but it seems that in general they are sufficiently happy not to worry about the details. As a service provider I was more concerned with ARIN policy than I am now as a commercial entity holding a couple of blocks. When I was a provider I cared about allocation and process more because I had a continuous need for more space for growth. Back then ARIN was new and the process changes were very fluid and hard to keep up with. As a commercial entity with enough space for the future and no major expansion plans I am less concerned about ARIN policy short of them trying to pull back my space (which they seem to be doing everything possible to avoid). John may be too polite to say so but I think asking him for information publicly on NANOG (which he very promptly responded to) and then publicly slamming ARINs process does not seem very fair to me. ARIN has a process for having views like this to be heard and a process for taking the helm (or at least some of it) if you think enough people agree. If John cares enough to monitor and respond to the community here on NANOG, I find it hard to believe that they don't care about our concerns. Steven Naslund Chicago IL

On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

john:

i appreciate the numbers. thanks! and, btw, it has always been a pleasure to work with arin staff.

...

Total number of /24s of space directly registered in ARIN's database = 6,644,175 (101.38 /8 equivalents)

Of those: 2,808,621 /24s of space (42.3%) are registered to ARIN members (42.86 /8 equivalents)

Total number of Org IDs with directly registered IPv4 addresses = 26,148

Of those: 4,520 (17%) are ARIN members

the arin membership consists of 17% of the address holding organizations in the region (plus a few folk who buy membership), and they hold 42% of the address space.

so the 17% (give or take) elect the board [0], and the board, through a complex inside-controlled process [1], sets policy for the other unrepresented 83%. and the board and policy wonks set policy and contracts, among other things the lrsa and rsa, which place serious barriers to becoming a member, such as clauses with arin being able to unilaterally change ts&cs arbitrarily. [2] [3]

Many facts not in evidence in that paragraph some of which are outright wrong. [0] As a member of the nominating committee in question, I will disagree with your claim that our declining to nominate you constitutes rigging the election. While I can’t disclose the details due to NDA restrictions on the NomCom, I will say that in my experience having served on the NomCom several times, they consider each potential nominee and do not take their duties lightly. [1] Anyone can make a proposal. If the outsider’s proposal is modified by the AC, and the proposer does not like the modifications, the proposer has an available petition process by which they can, if successful, get the original proposal directly to the community for consideration. IIRC, this petition process requires 10 or fewer people to support the proposer’s position in order to succeed. As to the LRSA/RSA, in fact, the policies cannot be changed unilaterally, they must be changed by a community driven consensus process except in the case of emergency policy action by the board. To the best of my knowledge, the board has only used that emergency authority twice. Any emergency action is subject to review by the AC within 1 month and by the community within 6 months.

and i know the "anyone can partiipate" theory. but in fact extremely few participate, and arin pays many of the policy wonks to fly around the world business class and spread the arin regulatory religion. no other rir does this.

Anyone with an email address who chooses to make the effort can easily participate. The barrier to participation is close to zero. If you have constructive suggestions on ways to increase participation, they are welcome. The other RIRs do, in fact, send representatives to all of the RIR meetings, so I’m not sure how you can make the above claim, unless your real concern is the fact issue of the business class travel. Owen

ok, let me also try to be constructive. how the heck do we get ourselves out of a hole where we are ruled by self-perptuating monopolies which lack oversight and accountability. and it ain't just arin. look at the big [cc]tlds, the horror of icann, ... i believe the only real solution is to open the game as wide as possible. for arin, remove the onerous ts&cs and the rights issues from the lrsa so that we can all go out and get everyone to join and participate. change the governance. term limits for board members and AC are critical. i see little value in the AC except to create further blockage and diversion. require that 25% of the board have enable and get some social blood in there, e.g. a librarian, susan crawford (a real internet policy person, not a damned wannabe weenie), or whatever. and stop flying baby policy weenies around the world in business class to stand up in meetings and say they are from arin. if you want arin represented, send staff. if arin wants input from foonog or barnic, send staff. arin has some good staff. the policy wannabes not so much. create artifical competition by allowing rir venue shopping. these geographic monopolies were a mistake. randy, who really needs to go back to work

Randy, Thanks for giving me a lead in! ARIN has been gradually evolving and tweaking the governance over the past fifteen years. Given it’s a small board it’s been generally done at the full Board historically. We’ve recently started to take a long look at a variety of issues to see if there is a better way to structure ourselves to deliver the mission and stay accountable to the community. We do have a small sub-set working given there is a lot of things to go through and I am leading the charge on that issue for the ARIN Board. Over the coming months we'll be more formally looking for community input on a variety of governance and accountability issues. In the interim we're happy to take any informal input directly. The specific point you mention in regards to term limits has been taken out of context in that the thought was that as part of a larger process we should likely go ask our various communities their thoughts on this and other issues which seems to be in line with what your asking. And no - not embarrassed… However the always colourful feedback is appreciated and will be taken into account. Cheers, -p On Mar 25, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

omg! a friend just sent this great example of how far down we have gone

https://www.arin.net/about_us/committeecharters.html#governance

there is a governance committee. guess the composition. "The Committee shall consist of three elected members from the Board of Trustees." how wonderfully corrupt.

and this is the self same board which could not agree to limit their own terms, <

...

. "The Board discussed term limits for its members and members of the ARIN AC. No consensus was reached."

my youngest granddaughter's kindergarten has better governance.

and they're not even embarrassed. sheesh!

randy

paul,

ARIN has been gradually evolving and tweaking the governance over the past fifteen years.

and there has been microscopic change

Given it’s a small board it’s been generally done at the full Board historically.

i think there is some idiom about the fox guarding the hen house. it should be done by a group of grownups from the outside. a subcommittee of the current governance discussing change in governance would be a great joke if you did not seem to take it seriously.

We’ve recently started to take a long look at a variety of issues to see if there is a better way to structure ourselves to deliver the mission and stay accountable to the community.

s/stay/become/ 83% of the community is not even in the room! and that is only considering address holders as the community. we are actually responsible to a much larger society. when we were forming arin, then then chair of the fcc explained to me why the fcc had commissioners who were from the general consumer public. i tried to get a librarian and a 15 year old with a modem on the original icann board, but no one took me seriously.

We do have a small sub-set working given there is a lot of things to go through and I am leading the charge on that issue for the ARIN Board.

once upon a time early in the icann debacle, i was dragged on to some high-falootin' committee. at a meeting (in sjc, i think), an outspoken audience member asked what the hell i was doing on the committee. i got out of my chair and asked him to please take it and replace me. it had the added feature of getting me out of that committee. :) now, i have zero desire to be on the arin board again. but you and the self appointed internal governance committee need to get out of your chairs. we need real governance folk to form a group to figure out how the heck to get out of the mud. i did not mention susan crawford idly. outsiders! and, btw, it's not just arin. in general, our internet administrative groups have classic but quite astonishing governance processes. while icann is quite competitive, arin does kinda take the cake. randy

Randy, Thanks for giving me a lead in! ARIN has been gradually evolving and tweaking the governance over the past fifteen years. Given it’s a small board it’s been generally done at the full Board historically. We’ve recently started to take a long look at a variety of issues to see if there is a better way to structure ourselves to deliver the mission and stay accountable to the community. We do have a small sub-set working given there is a lot of things to go through and I am leading the charge on that issue for the ARIN Board. Over the coming months we'll be more formally looking for community input on a variety of governance and accountability issues. In the interim we're happy to take any informal input directly. The specific point you mention in regards to term limits has been taken out of context in that the thought was that as part of a larger process we should likely go ask our various communities their thoughts on this and other issues which seems to be in line with what your asking. And no - not embarrassed… However the always colourful feedback is appreciated and will be taken into account. Cheers, -p — Paul Andersen EGATE Networks Inc. e: paul@egate.net On Mar 25, 2014, at 1:23 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

omg! a friend just sent this great example of how far down we have gone

https://www.arin.net/about_us/committeecharters.html#governance

there is a governance committee. guess the composition. "The Committee shall consist of three elected members from the Board of Trustees." how wonderfully corrupt.

and this is the self same board which could not agree to limit their own terms, <https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot/bot2012_1025.html>. "The Board discussed term limits for its members and members of the ARIN AC. No consensus was reached."

my youngest granddaughter's kindergarten has better governance.

and they're not even embarrassed. sheesh!

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.

- 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. randy

[ you're cheating, you're in an asian time zone! ]

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.

that is always the argument. the benefits of openness and new blood far outweigh the 'benefit' of rule by old dogs who appoint committees of themselves.

I will note that this discussion is presently on nanog, and I am not certain that all of the ARIN Board members subscribe.

an interesting point in itself, as north american operators are the smallest description of the arin constituency. a new ietf ops area director once asked me to monitor the nanog list for them and tell them if anything passed that was important. i told them that they should resign immediately.

I will forward your message to the Board

thanks

but would you prefer to take this to one of the ARIN lists

my experience is that ppml, the only one i remember, is far too toxic for me to last more than a day. and this is about the whole bleeping internet community. arin is far too closed and inward facing, breathing its own smoke.

or have a us setup a distinct list for this purpose, or something else?

how about forming an *outside* arin governance brainstorming committee? not binding. but a fresh, outside, wide-ranging, expert view. as i just said to someone privately, scan the entire array of internet administrative/infrastructural organizations. show me one that has a good, responsive, representative, open, ... governance structure. the ietf is interesting except it's a technocratic meritocracy. and i certainly would not call its governance open. i would make it clear that things such as policy, personalities, ... are out of scope. and i would beg to get some heavy hitters to help, which is why i keep plugging susan crawford as an example. there are others. i'd also suggest one non-board insider such as cja, so that questions about internals can be answered. yes, opening up the game is scary. it darned well should be. it could change the status quo. but that might be good for arin, good for the community, and good for the internet. randy

Yes and no… Everyone who receives a direct allocation is a member. Those who receive direct assignments from ARIN, OTOH, are not members unless they choose to also pay an additional $500/year for that membership. Owen On Mar 23, 2014, at 9:53 PM, Timothy Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com> wrote:

Unless I misremember, everyone who receives a direct allocation from ARIN and signs an RSA is automatically a member. It's not clear to me what "owner of a /24 network" means in that context. (I don't recall if signing an LRSA in and of itself also makes one a member, since by the time we had signed an LRSA, we had long since received our direct IPv6 allocation under an RSA.)

But perhaps Randy is looking for the number of /24 equivalents allocated to legacy resource holders who haven't also received an IPv6 direct allocation or other IPv4 direct allocation under an RSA?

Scott

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:46 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund@medline.com>wrote:

...

Exactly right John. I think the term "owned" is a problem here.

It seems to me that the terms would correctly be "holder" or who the address space was issued to or "user" being the end user using that space.

Wouldn't all of the holders be ARIN members unless grandfathered in?

Steven Naslund Chicago IL

-----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran@arin.net] Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2014 10:36 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: arin representation

On Mar 23, 2014, at 6:53 PM, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> wrote:

...

two questions:

o of the /24s in the arin region, what percentage are owned by arin members?

Randy -

Happy to generate these - two questions for clarity.

1) Should we expand /16's and /8's into the corresponding number of /24's ? (or do you only want those blocks issued originally as /24's to be counted)

2) In terms of categories, we could go strictly with /24's held by ARIN members versus /24's held by non-members (and resulting percentages); note that would be predominantly ISPs since end-users assignments from ARIN are unlikely to be members unless they specifically opted to join. Alternatively, we could provide counts /24's under RSA, /24's under LRSA, and /24's legacy-no-agreement as the three categories of counts desired (and each percentage of the total)

So, based on above, would you prefer the /24 space statistics as asked (member/non-member) or rsa/lrsa/legacy-no-agreement?

...

o of the address holders in the arin region, what percentage are arin members?

Will do.

Thanks! /John

John Curran President and CEO ARIN

>>  o of the /24s in the arin region, what percentage are owned by arin
>>    members?
> 1) Should we expand /16's and /8's into the corresponding number of
>    /24's ?

sorry.  i mean the number of /24 equivalents.  so yes, expand /7-/23

> 2)  In terms of categories, we could go strictly with /24's held by ARIN members 
>     versus /24's held by non-members (and resulting percentages)

yep

> Alternatively, we could provide counts /24's under RSA, /24's under
> LRSA, and /24's legacy-no-agreement as the three categories of counts
> desired (and each percentage of the total)

that would work, presuming those three categories cover all space, e.g.
us military etc.

randy