[arin-discuss] [ppml] Counsel statement on Legacy assignments?

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 03:53:02PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> But 'everyone' isn't in the interest of ARIN spending its funds. ARIN
> funds have to go to a specific ARIN purpose.  Nanog isn't open to
> everyone, anyway. Nanog also gets more meeting attendees from ARIN.
> Further, if the benefit to ARIN is increased fees from meeting
> attendance, then that is far outweighed by giving $50,000 to Nanog.
> Nanog is the net beneficiary, not ARIN. This dubious at best. I wonder
> if this isn't an improper scheme to transfer ARIN assets to Nanog.

I, for one, think that $50,000 for NANOG is entirely reasonable, as it
does provide a forum for operators to discuss technical issues.  The
openness of that forum may be a subject for opinion/discussion
(although I'm fine with it), but that's not the point.

That's my opinion, but I suspect it's broadly shared by many people
involved in ARIN issues.  I think you're looking for an issue that most
simply don't see.
 
> > > > Most people who attend the ARIN meeting or both meetings tell us
> > > > that they like having joint meetings.
> > > 
> > > I'm sure the Nanog people say that. Nanog attendence has
> > > dramatically increased after joint meetings with ARIN.
> > 
> > I was referring to statistics reported by ARIN's Member Services, and
> > the participant feedback we get after ARIN meetings.
> 
> There is (obviously) some overlap between ARIN attendees and Nanog
> attendees.  My point is that this group probably reports more favorable
> feedback about Nanog, than do the rest of ARIN members.

Again, I think you miss the point.  Many of us would go to both
meetings anyway.  Co-locating them simplifies travel arrangements,
which makes it possible for more people (and inclusion is the point,
yes?) to attend *both* events.  That's a good thing, unless you wish to
identify anyone involved with NANOG as inherently bad, in which case
their attendence at ARIN is a problem.  I don't see it that way,
though, so I think you are again looking for a divisive issue where
none exists.

> The objective facts show that Nanog has been involved in deception and
> disinformation campaigns, which seems to disqualify Nanog from
> "information and educational outreach" See
> http://www.iadl.org/nanog/nanog-story.html

Those "objective" facts are very prone to subjective interpretation.  I
don't think the world is entirely hunky-dory, but I don't think there's
quite the vast evil cartel that you seem to see.  Sorry, but your
conclusions are not objective.

-David