Alan, I actually have proposed (unfortunately, some of them in private notes to Kim Hubbard) a list of small but important changes that could make the proposal far more acceptable.
1) Opening the loop for member input but stating unequivocally that the Advisory Council will be elected directly by the members, and that the Advisory Council will elect the Trustees. These are inferred in draft two, but as the lawyers say, if it ain't in writing, it ain't.
2) Provide a mission statement up front. Simple, since the mission is obvious to some. But it needs to be there.
3) Reassign the creation of goals for ARIN from the Advisory Council to the Board of Trustees.
4) Remove Kim Hubbard's name from the list of Trustees. Since Kim's intention is to be an employee of ARIN (a good idea, I think), she wouldn't be a Trustee anyway. And this removes the NSI double-trustee problem.
5) Provide better economic information. So far, and still, we have heard only the vaguest of details in support of the extensive fee structure -- first that it is "what they are doing in Europe and Asia", then that it will take this much money (with no details as to why), and finally that since NSI is funding ARIN's startup, it's their business anyway. . .
Alan, anarchy is a very poor management model, and generally only works when someone else is footing the bill. ARIN begins the transition to a model in which every penny of this will come, directly or indirectly, from our pockets. This isn't, as has been inferred, as case in which we just replace funding from NSF with a quick gouge of the "big guys". We are those guys.
And I'd note again that once ARIN is in place with a closed Board that is not accountable to the industry or its members, you'll play hell trying to change it. Who would you complain to? And why would they listen to you?
Anyway, those are my thoughts. . .
From: Alan Barrett[SMTP:apb at IAFRICA.COM]
Sent: Monday, February 03, 1997 2:39 AM
To: Dave McClure
Cc: NAIPR at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
Subject: RE: AOP Notification
Dave McClure wrote:
> When we found out that it was a listserv we immediately sent a
> clarification to our members.
Thanks. I didn't know about that.
> You can form AntiNICs to your heart's content, but so what? Control
> of North American IP addresses and fees for the same will still be
> under the control of ARIN, which will be controlled by select group of
> self-perpetuating Trustees.
I don't think so. Control is in the hands of whoever the community
chooses to trust. That's part of how anarchy works. The IANA and ARIN
know how anarchy works (or so I assume), and will therefore find it in
their best interests to act in such a way that they do not lose the
trust of the community.
> Note that under the current proposal, the Board of Trustees will
> elect new trustees from among candidates proposed by an Advisory
> Council. The Advisory Council will, itself, be selected by the Board
> of Trustees. That's a closed loop that provides for no direct input
> from the members of ARIN.
Yes, I agree that that might be a problem. Perhaps it would be useful
if you proposed a concrete alternative? (Or perhaps you have done so
already, and I don't remember it?)
> [various good points deleted]
--apb (Alan Barrett)