[arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20

[John Brown]

When I was on the ARIN AC once upon a time, I often mentioned that the
small guy wasn't considered as much as ARIN should be.  I was told that
I was incorrect.  Hmm, I still think the small ISP, rural ISP is still
overlooked.

The small rural ISP doesn't have the time, or in many cases the money to
fly and attend a ARIN meeting in some "expensive" city.   I had hoped
that more local out-reach could be done with local meetings.  

Associating ARIN meetings with NANOG meetings, while generally a good
idea, also doesn't solve the issue for the small guy.  Must small ISP's
don't attend NANOG either, for much the same reasons.

This creates an impression that personal participation in ARIN is
limited to the "BIG Guys", those that can afford to spend $1500 or more
in travel and other costs to attend an ARIN meeting.

As has been mentioned many a time on this and other lists, participation
is key.  Whinning is non-productive, constructive suggestions are
productive.

There is also an educational ramp up issue to look at.  Many of those on
this list have been involved with netops for decades, many of the
questions have been asked and answered before, newer people now getting
involved will ask those questions again.  It may be useful for the AC to
work on a list of "common" questions for the website.

1. Why can or can't ARIN just make XXX return their space.
	Pre ARIN      allocated
	Pre InterNIC  allocated

Etc.



In general the community needs to keep an open mind to the questions
that come forward.  There could be good ideas in there.

A detailed look at the space, and really what is in use vs allocated
needs to be conducted.


With respects to IPv6.  Bottom line.  That train is coming to town, get
your depot built and ready to receive the cargo, or be by-passed.  The
fact that your provider doesn't have it yet is an invalid excuse.  Get
it working internally, use a tunnel broker, but get it working.  Then
BUG THE HECK out of your providers sales guy every other week.  They
will get the message. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of VAUGHN 
> THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: 'Owen DeLong'
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd 
> like to RETURN a /20
> 
> Thanks for fleshing that out Owen.
> 
>  
> 
> I think the issue is that small ISP's (overworked and often 
> overwhelmed) have not been paying attention.
> 
>  
> 
> I think the "community" is being represented by a subset that 
> seems to have (opinion here, not asserting as fact) been 
> under-representing the small ISP's, which by the way make up 
> the bulk of the community - the silent majority in fact.
> 
>  
> 
> I hope I am not the only part of the sleeping bear that has 
> been awakened, but believe we are paying more attention now.  
> You might not be so lonely on that stance should it come up again.
> 
>  
> 
> ~Vaughn
> 
>  
> 
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:15 AM
> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd 
> like to RETURN a /20
> 
>  
> 
> 	
> 	PS.  I also just learned (from an offline conversation, 
> quote below) that
> 	ARIN recently set a policy to allow the selling of IP 
> space (paid transfers)
> 	between organizations.  Does this seem counter to good 
> stewardship in a time
> 	of impending depletion?  If I have my head on straight, 
> this is a pretty
> 	kind act towards those same early/big assignment 
> holders, isn't it?
> 
>  
> 
> You say "ARIN recently set" as if ARIN was some third party 
> setting policy
> 
> independent of input from the membership or the community.
> 
>  
> 
> While the policy proposals in question took a tortured and 
> circuitous route
> 
> to adoption, it was definitely done with community input and support
> 
> throughout the process.
> 
>  
> 
> It is a matter of record that I was the only dissenting voice 
> in passing
> 
> policy proposal 2009-1, and, that I did so strictly because I 
> felt that the
> 
> community's interests were not represented in the removal of 
> the sunset
> 
> clause. Given the lack of support for subsequently restoring 
> the sunset
> 
> clause both in the AC and apparently on PPML, I can only conclude
> 
> that my belief the community wanted the sunset clause may well have
> 
> been incorrect.
> 
>  
> 
> While I remain unconvinced that a liberalized transfer policy is good
> 
> policy, I am convinced that of the community which was participating
> 
> in policy development at the time the issue was being 
> considered, there
> 
> was/is strong support for such a policy.
> 
>  
> 
> I do not believe the ARIN should adopt bad policy just because there
> 
> is strong community support for it.  However, I do believe 
> that if ARIN
> 
> (specifically the AC and the BoT) are going to go against strong
> 
> community support, then, they should be somewhat certain that the
> 
> policy in question is bad policy. I am not sufficiently 
> certain that the
> 
> relaxed transfer policy is bad policy.
> 
>  
> 
> Owen
> 
>  
> 
> The opinions above are mine and mine alone.  I am not speaking
> 
> for the AC and many members of the AC disagree with me on
> 
> this subject.
> 
>  
> 
>