NAIPR Message

Rebuttal to Mr. Weisberg's insinuations Re: Important News from Don Telage about ARIN


I really thought I answered your question on "democracy" in a previous
exchange and need some help zeroing in on what more is sought.  I will
try to respond to all your questions and points below.  If I get off
point, let me know.

David R. Conrad wrote:
> Again, I ask: within the context of IP address allocation, what
> exactly do you mean by "a democratic process"?  Please be specific.

I did not say that any single model is the only right way to organize an
ARIN. I simply suggested that the mechanism should be representative (as
where there are representatives from trade organizations for the various
segments of the Internet community, including consumers) or democratic
(elected, as in other forms of corporate governance), and that we arrive
at a broad concensus through open discussion in a forum such as this.   

We are all in organizations which conduct elections.  I assume that an
IP registry could do so, as well.  Indeed, that is what Gordon reports
will be required for the ARIN advisory board sometime after the first
year of ARIN's existence.  So, the feasibility of an election is not in
dispute, simply when that process will begin.

It is 2:40 a.m. here, and I have not had supper.  So, I will defer
further discusssion until you or someone else asks me to deal with it
somemore.  I do not want to duck the issue and won't if it is of
interest to more than just me. 

> >I am not criticizing Jon Postel.  I am criticizing top-down governance.
> >I am alleging and criticizing a failure to publically discuss how ARIN
> >should be organized.
> ARIN was discussed, at some length, quite publicly on this list and at
> various venues such as the IETF, NANOG, etc.

You will have to help me with this.  Was the abstract concept of ARIN
discussed or was the specific structure which was adopted discussed?  In
other words, was the method of choosing the BoT and the Advisory Council
discussed before a decision was made?
> >I also suggest that the ARIN "proposal" smacks (to my admittedly
> >sensitive ear) of paternalism.
> Previously, you have admitted that you do not have the technical
> background to discuss specifics about how address allocations are
> done, yet you now describe the ARIN proposal as paternalistic.  I
> might suggest that you might try to understand how and why the
> registries operate as they do before applying negative attributes to
> them.

David, I want to back off on this.  I admitted that my ears are overly
sensitive.  Perhaps I was hearing something which was not intended.  You
certainly are in a better position to judge this than I.  And, I hear
you saying that it is not true.  I appologize to all involved.
> >But, no one has responded to me on these points.
> Perhaps because you have not spelled out what you mean?

I never intended to get this deeply involved, no less to suggest that I
have the wisdom to dictate the structure.  I merely wanted to make sure
that there was a proccess designed to result in a representative system
rather than one of stangnant control.  

As Robert Nelson pointed out, I backed into this discussion through the
PI issue, so I have been seeing red flags for a while.  I percieved, and
still percieve a system which is demonstrably and unneccesarily unfair. 
I think I have seen disparate treatment for different players.  I am
told by everyone involved that NSI will not fix the system but will
leave it to ARIN and that ARIN will not be able to even address that
issue for months.  As a result, I have put considerable thought into
various legal remedies and see ARIN as part of the problem rather than
as a solution.  So, I admit that I come to my conclusions with a
history.   Unfortunately, there has been very little attempt to assuage
my fears, merely references to my "clueless" state, which has had the
opposite effect.

However, we may all be in agreement on these issues and simply not know
it.  Thus, I would appreciate the ARIN board members discussing THEIR
vision of where we are going as far as govenrance is concerned.  Indeed,
I think this is what Gordon was suggesting.   Perhaps we can start
discussing how to make things work instead of accusing the each other of
unintended agendas or insults.

BTW, the other thing which has me concerned with ARIN is the method of
appointing the INITIAL Advisory Council.  I hope, suggest and request
that the BoT will find a mechanism for assuring balance and diversity in
the AC.  Again, this could be done by asking the various trade groups
for representatives or by discussing candidates openly in this forum and
arriving on some rough concensus.  I would suggest some form of
electronic voting with a proportionate representation methodology (such
as giving each person 15 votes to use however they see fit, either
spread among 15 candidates or all used on one or two, with the top 15
vote getters being selected).

> Regards,
> -drc

David, thanks for the constructive questions and criticism.  I honestly
appreciate your patience and your willingness to participate as you do.