[ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio
Howard, W. Lee
L.Howard at stanleyassociates.com
Wed May 11 10:50:33 EDT 2005
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ppml at arin.net [mailto:owner-ppml at arin.net] On
> Behalf Of Michael.Dillon at radianz.com
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 8:56 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Proposed Policy: IPv6 HD ratio
> How many people who are not current or trustees or AC
> members, actually participate in ARIN policy discussions and
> what percentage of the membership does that represent? In my
> opinion it is miniscule and that is a bad thing.
It looks to me like people become AC and BoT members because
they participate. So, when members of the public participate,
they're asked to run for election; when elected, they become
"31337" and should no longer particpate?
> This community is primarily composed of the industry elite.
Only by virtue of being composed of the people who post.
> In England that community of consensus used to be called
> "the nobility". Later it was referred to as the "landed
> gentry". Elites can form communities, but ARIN has a duty to
> its members and to the larger community of Internet users, to draw in
> participation from a wider circle. I don't see that happening
> and in fact, over the past 2 years, I see the circle
> diminishing in size somewhat.
Economic downturn, corporate downsizing, more work per person. . .
people don't have as much time to read and post to mailing lists.
> For instance, I reccognize the name of every person who is
> currently on the AC and I believe I have personally met
> all but two of them even though I don't get to very many
> industry conferences (e.g. NANOG, ARIN, RIPE). Average of one
> a year. To me that indicates too much concentration of
> old-timers and members of a small closed group.
Part of the problem is that we have people who have too much
> In a body
> with 15 members serving an industry as big as the North
> American Internet, I believe that there should be more people
> who I have never heard of. It is not necessary for people to
> be ARIN groupies or industry old-timers in
> order to make a solid contribution on the AC. There needs
> to be more diversity of views and more diversity of
> backgrounds in the mix.
There's something concrete you can do about this:
> planned actions of ARIN. I believe that this oversight
> role is SEVERELY impaired because there is no ARIN
> members forum. If there was such a forum, you would see
> it proposing things from the IP network operators'
> point of view, and then the public comment on this list
> would temper those proposals with the public's point
> of view.
arin-discuss at arin.net
"Provides a forum for the member community to discuss ARIN-specific issues
such as fee structures and internal policies."
Huh, what do you know, the most recent post was from Michael Dillon,
Oct 24, 2003.
> > there is a completely open and transparent process with no
> > ARIN members who are interested in policy, can and do speak
> up on this
> > list.
> The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was similarly open
> to comment with no exclusions. However, in practice, it was
> rare for such comments to be made. The end result is that the
> organization ossified, made lots of stupid decisions, and was
> eventually destroyed when people discovered that they didn't
> have to put up with it any more. It is not enough for an
> organization to be open on paper. It needs to be seen to be
> open in actual practice. And I don't think this is happening
> with ARIN. I think ARIN is beginning to ossify because it lacks a
> supply of new blood with new ideas.
I think we're pretty well open to new contributions. Frequently,
when someone posts for the first time, they get a couple of
private messages saying, "Thanks for posting! Keep it up!"
Same with comments at the mike at the public policy meetings. We
love new people.
So, all you lurkers, say something!
> --Michael Dillon
More information about the ARIN-PPML