[ppml] RE: [arin-announce] NRO Response to ITU Comments on the Management of Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses
gregm at datapro.co.za
Wed Nov 17 13:32:01 EST 2004
> This is not the case. Policies are proposed and discussed by anyone who
> an interest in the management of Internet number resources. ARIN
> is not at all a consideration. Unlike organizations such as the ITU,
I am aware that one does not have to be an ARIN member to propose a policy
or participate, however, I question how many non-members are (a) aware of
this; and (b) participate in the ARIN PPML and at meetings.
I still believe that ARIN members "effectively" (note I used that word in my
previous email as well) control ARIN policy, because they have the greatest
understanding of ARIN and presence on the PPML and at ARIN meetings. I stand
to be corrected. Maybe we can get some stats from the registration records
for ARIN meetings on how many of the attendees at Reston were representing
organisations that are ARIN members.
> I would like to call your attention to ARIN policy 2003-15. ARIN policy
> 2003-15 and 2002-3 are very similar policies in that both deal with an
> allocation size smaller than the minimum allocation size. The big
> difference is that policy 2003-15 applies only to the African portion of
> ARIN region. It was proposed, supported and adopted in recognition that
> only a few providers in Africa could qualify for the minimum allocation;
> more could qualify and thus become independent if the minimum allocation
> size was smaller. In this case the time from proposal to final adoption
Having co-presented this policy with Bill in Chicago last year, I am
extremely familiar with it. The interesting thing is that prior to this
proposal there was a lot of frustration amongst African ISPs about the
previous minimum allocation size but none were aware that they had any
influence over the matter until you and other ARIN representatives attended
the iWeek 2003 conference and pointed this out.
This is why ARIN's active outreach effort to attend iWeek 2003 in
Johannesburg was so important and why I'm saying that it is so important for
RIRs to actively engage government. It is unrealistic to expect everyone to
be familiar with the RIRs and their policies. I applaud ARIN for taking that
initiative and encourage the initiative to be extended to the NRO.
Particularly where governments are involved, outreach and engagement becomes
Had it not been for your presence in Johannesburg in 2003, I would not be on
the PPML right now and not typing this email. That was not because of lack
of interest on my part, but lack of knowlege about ARIN. Until then, my only
interaction with ARIN was to apply for IP addresses and ASNs and even
through such interaction I did not become aware that I had any influence
over the policies governing those requests.
Similarly, if the NRO expects to effectively counter the ITU's proposal, it
needs to actively educate government and stakeholders. It is too idealistic
to say that because ARIN meetings are open to attendence by all that
government should know and understand the value of ARIN and the NRO and know
that it can influence these organisations.
The sudden influx of Africans on the PPML voicing their support for 2003-15
was notable. Didn't you wonder where they all appeared from or why they were
so vocal? It was a direct result of ARIN's outreach at iWeek 2003. I also
followed up by personally sending messages out to the ISPA and IOZ lists and
spoke to a number of ISPs who had moaned about ARIN to me in the past.
> Outreach to persons and organizations that do not participate in the
> or are not aware of ARIN is a continuous activity on the part of ARIN. To
> that end ARIN conducted a sub-regional meeting in Tanzania in June 2004.
> ARIN continues to seek other ways to promote participation and would
> any suggestions you may have to achieve this goal.
I think ARIN has done very well at promoting participation, but given that
it is not possible to get everyone to participate I think it would be useful
for ARIN to identify those stakeholders who are unlikely to participate and
task the AC with considering their interests in each policy proposal. The
most obvious one is recipients of small re-assignments from LIRS.
In terms of who to engage for further participation in ARIN, I would suggest
every recipient of an ARIN resource (IP addresses, ASNs, etc) should be told
more about ARIN as part of their request approval or denial.
More information about the ARIN-PPML