[arin-ppml] "whole community" (PPM versus PPML)

Benson Schliesser bensons at queuefull.net
Tue Nov 8 16:17:38 EST 2011

On Nov 8, 2011, at 2:46 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
>> I can't speak for Bill.  But from my perspective, neither
>> of these categories (PPML members and/or PPM
>> attendees) represent the "whole community".
> ...
> I think there's a case to be made that between attendance at a
> semi-annual meeting and participation on a public discussion list,
> anyone who cares to make his or her voice heard on matters of ARIN
> number policy has ample means to do so. We aren't the whole community,
> but we're all of it who choose to speak up and be heard.

That's a fair statement.  (Except, I note: there are people who "care" and still don't invest the energy needed to make themselves "heard". This is true for various reasons, that I won't bother to expand at this time because they distract from the main point.)

But my intended meaning is that the AC is not representative of the "whole community". ARIN does a good job at allowing the community to provide input, agreed. But of that community, only a subset are members. And of those members, an even smaller self-selected subset bother to vote. When the AC makes decisions, those decisions represent the self-interest, bias, and ideology of a small part of the whole community. (Not necessarily in that order, and not necessarily to the same extent for all AC members.)

For what it's worth, I don't know how to improve the situation - if I did, I'd make a recommendation to ARIN.  But in the meantime I think ARIN should be honest with itself; it's inappropriate to claim a "whole community" mandate for the AC.

Just my opinion.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list