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

Fri Jul 24 14:17:26 EDT 2009

Hmmm...

Can this be pooled?  In other words, could "many of us" designate "some of
us"?

~V

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Maimon [mailto:jmaimon at chl.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 2:09 PM
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

Arin allows for Designated Member Representative

While this will help with election representation, it wont help much to 
show consensus for policies.

Joe

VAUGHN THURMAN - SWIFT SYSTEMS INC wrote:
> 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.
> 
> 