[arin-ppml] Future pressures on the ARIN policy process (Was: Use of "reserved" address space)

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 4:00 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:45 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> ) The restrictions on membership are pretty darn offensive I would
> ) say...  organizations which are part  of the American RIR community
> ) which ARIN is supposed to serve but do not have resources directly
> ) allocated/assigned ARIN are arbitrarily  excluded from joining ARIN.
>
> 3450 ISPs and 20 non-ISPs eligible to vote has had a lopsided effect
> on the folks selected for the board and the AC. Particularly the AC
> most of whom haven't, shall we say, reached the height of
> statesmanship achieved by the luminaries considered for the board.

You know, that came out really badly. Since I consider the folks on
the AC to be good, respectable, talented individuals, let me attempt
to rephrase it...

Everything else being equal, the current election process selects for
individuals who tend to lean towards ISP points of view. No surprise -
few but ISP reps are voting. Unfortunately, what's good for ISPs is
not always good for the rest of the address-using community. It would
be nice if the process did not introduce that bias... or introduced a
second factor with an opposing bias.


I dunno. Would it be possible/practical/useful to have some sort of
at-large member of the board and/or AC intentionally elected through
an alternate process that tries to be highly inclusive of end users
whose role is to serve as a check against ISP-leaning groupthink?

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004