[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN

[Mike Burns]

Point taken, although I think there is a huge qualitative difference between 
regional and commercial RIRs.
I do not object to ARIN and the other RIRs being heard, but I think the 
decision should be made by the body at the higher organizational level.


Regards,
Mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Curran" <jcurran at arin.net>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com>; "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net>; 
<arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of 
interest/IPaddress policy pitched directly to ICANN


On Apr 30, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
>> I agree with JC, the ASO and constituent RIRs are quite capable of
>> dealing with this AND manage potential conflict of interest issues
>
> What could make somebody think the RIRs are capable of managing conflict 
> of interest?
> Can you provide some examples where RIRs have made policy which would 
> reduce their control?

ARIN, along with the two other RIRs at the time (RIPE NCC and
APNIC) worked together to encourage and help form new RIRs in
LACNIC and AfriNIC in accordance with ICP-2 as soon as the
community in those regions expressed the desire and ability
to support these operations.

This obviously involved managing the conflict of providing
services to organizations in those regions directly (your
first question), and resulted in reduction of control over
policies and services in those regions (your second point).

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN