[arin-discuss] Legacy RSA

[Dean Anderson]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> 
> Hrm... I honestly don't know if this is a sarcastic comment or not
> regarding my posts.  It's hard to tell...What I do know is there needs
> to be a pretty good consensus of members to vote out the board, and I
> really don't see that happening here...

Its not sarcastic. And I do see a consensus developing.  A lot more
people were simply against moderating the discussion. To some extent,
that indicates they have an open mind and perhaps at least want to see
the evidence develop.  Others are contributing on the same side of the
issue.  And there very few NANOG participants in the membership.

But sleeping on it, I think Scott Shackelford makes a very good point.  
Too much discussion could become tedious or distracted. The Board will
also need a reasonable amount of time to respond; I can't ask for
something this morning and complain about non-responsiveness this
afternoon.  Some several days are required for some of the questions.  
So, I'm going to taper off my argument for now, and instead post a
report every few days or once a week on the questions posed to the
Board, and whether the Board has been responsive to the questions. I
think this could go this way for a month or so until just before the
next meeting.  Then I'll report on the findings and make a
recommendation based on findings and responsiveness for whether and
which Board Members should be removed.  Board Members cannot be removed
but by a vote of the membership, and if I read the process for removal
correctly, I think the earliest that can take place is the next meeting.

> How are you arguing? The last x^x threads have not been arguing. It has
> been a one against x^x onslaught. It needs to stop. This argument was
> dead in what, 2006?

Huh?  This issue was just recently brought up to ARIN, just before the 
last meeting.

> > As Ted noted already, most of the 'unsubscribes' are bogus. 
> 
> Bullshit! I am a real person, and so are many others I have spoken to
> off list who are wanting to unsub.

I don't see your name in the unsub posts.  And who have you been talking
to offlist that wants to unsubscribe?  I have these people asking to
unsubscribe:

James Johnson                (5004) [arin-discuss] remove                                  
Miguel Betancourt            (5866) [arin-discuss] REMOVE                                  
Julio Reyes                  (8756) [arin-discuss]  REMOVE                                 
Tom Burling                   (19K) Re: [arin-discuss] REMOVE                              
Brad Pittenger                (14K) Re: [arin-discuss] REMOVE                              
Kapil Bisht                   (17K) Re: [arin-discuss] REMOVE
Terri Kelley                  (21K) [arin-discuss] unsubscribe  

Only Terri Kelley and Tom Burling actually included comments. The others
appear to be automated, as Ted M. points out.



> ARIN needs input from operation to make logical decisions that will
> have a direct affect on global Internet routing.

I agree we need technical Input, yes. But improper transfers and wasted
funds proping up a defunct, dysfunctional organization we don't need.  
ARIN is not in the business of helping NANOG stay afloat.

But I've got no problem sending invited speakers to NANOG. And I've got
no problem with NANOG participants becoming ARIN members.

> PLEASE don't let ARIN distribute IP's in a structural manner, without
> any input from the people that actually have to implement them. Sure,
> this is politics, and I hate it, but technically this is life for the
> next generation.

I agree, that would be bad. But that's why ARIN has members, automatic
membership, and why ARIN has the PPML, and why ARIN has the Advisory
Council, and why we have ICANN/IANA and other organizations to provide
technical support for these issues.  ARIN is not lacking technical
input, and in any case, ARIN has not received any technical input for
its financial support to NANOG.

This isn't a choice between either having no technical input or else
transferring $120,000+ improperly to NANOG, as it seems the few NANOG
proponents describe the issue.


-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000