On Sun, 2 Feb 1997, Dave McClure wrote:
> !) Have the initial Board of Trustees serve for one year only, and then
> re-elect a Board to continue the organization.
This would cause a lack of continuity which is worse than having a
self-selected board. And the ARIN board is not truly self-selected since
the potential members could have the composition of the board changed if
they felt strongly enough about it. For instance if the core network
operators decided that they wanted another operator like Curtis Villamizar
instead of a researcher like Scott Bradner, then it is in the realm of
> 2) Invite other interested parties (IETF, Internet Society, AOP, etc.)
> to nominate other candidates to the Board. This will eliminate any
> stigma of InterNIC appointments and allow the organizations to take a
> stronger role in supporting ARIN.
I don't believe any of the BoT candidate have an InterNIC stigma other
than the CEO of Network Solutions. And I don't think it is realistic
to have a patchwork board composed of nominees. And you forgot the CIX and
the ISP/C in your list. Even then, the CIX and ISP/C do not represent all
ISP's so it's no more fair than the current proposed board.
> 3) Consider holding an "ARIN Congress" meeting of interested parties
> that could approve the final proposal. This also would help to build
> consensus, and remove objections that a group of 300 or so people in a
> single listserv are behind ARIN.
No doubt there will be a number of people at the next NANOG meeting
discussing the proposals face-to-face. But you should know that doing this
sort of thing at a "congress" is also unfair to those who cannot afford
the time or the money to attend.
Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com