[arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example, I'd like to RETURN a /20
John Brown
john at citylinkfiber.com
Fri Jul 24 12:51:05 EDT 2009
Actually what the small ISP's need to do is to place people on the AC
and on the BoT.
Find people within the small guy world that have clue and get them
nominated and then get them elected to the BoT and or the AC. (note
well, I believe that the BoT and AC have generally done a good job.)
Internet governance is a "stakeholder" (ducking now) driven process. So
if you give a darn, you have to participate in a meaning full manner.
And be willing to invest in your time for the betterment of the entire
community.
> -----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 10:41 AM
> To: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd
> like to RETURN a /20
>
> I agree. There are plenty of good operations doing a few
> million a year in sales who seriously cannot afford the
> combined travel costs and lost time of key staff. Sending the
> receptionist doesn't do much good. I really feel like the
> small ISP's need to band up, share expenses and delegate/hire
> a competent and loyal representative.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Brown [mailto:john at citylinkfiber.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 12:37 PM
> To: VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC; Owen DeLong
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Good Stewardship by example,I'd
> like to RETURN a /20
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
More information about the ARIN-discuss
mailing list