[arin-ppml] AC candidates

[John Springer]

The phrase that always went around "back in the day" was : members of the
community have the right to seek policy proposals in their own interests.
Law enforcement in particular was encouraged in this way. And members (in
the old sense) did. And it was perfectly normal for large resource holders
(and countries) to what? place personnel on the board and AC to relatively
unabashedly influence policy in their master's interests? And there was no
recusal or rarely.

So sure, sunshine cures many ills. Not much has changed in that regard.
imvho

Springer
only the one voice
once part of the not falling out of the sky

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:58 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>
wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 26, 2023, at 21:01, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 23:51 Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Well said.
>>
>> I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing
>> compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with
>> evolution and entrepreneurship.
>
>
>
> I find it weird that people still answer every business problem with
> “IPv6”.  If the Internet wasn’t a business nome of us would be here.
>
> One only need look at legacy allocations (and boundaries) to understand
> that its always been understood there are coexisting interests that can
> align. Including the role we all created for brokerage.
>
> They didn’t just fall out of the sky.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -M<
>
>
> Well said. Look, I was one of the most resistant to the idea of address
> resale in the days leading up to runout. However, today’s reality is
> substantially different from the reality that existed at that time and I
> adapted my thinking.
>
> Brokers provide a valuable service to the community. They spend a
> considerable amount of effort tracking down underutilized resources and
> making it possible for those resources to be better utilized.
>
> Are there areas where their interests may conflict with the broader
> community? You betcha.
>
> However, there was a time when the interests of large ISPs included
> restricting the minimum ARIN allocation or assignment size to /19 (and some
> of them would have liked to see it even shorter (ISTR some pushing for /16
> at one point). On the other hand, the smaller providers and end users
> wanted to see it move to /24.
>
> The community has always included members with differing legitimate needs
> and desires. The job of the AC is to work with the community to find
> balance among those.
>
> Today, and at least until we can consider IPv4 an island protocol not
> relevant to the core internet, brokers are a reality. They have a
> legitimate role to play and provide an important service to the community.
> These are words I would never have expected to write 15 years ago. But as I
> said, reality has changed.
>
> Would I want brokers solely in charge of ARIN policy? No.
>
> Nor would I want any one of large ISPs, Cable operators, WISPs, or
> community networks or any other single ARIN constituency solely in charge.
> That’s why I’m glad we have a 15-member advisory council that contains
> representatives from many different ARIN constituencies and a broad range
> of experience.
>
> But each of those constituencies is entitled to fair representation and
> participation and it makes no sense to me to argue that someone is
> inherently more conflicted merely because they come from a particular
> constituency.
>
> Owen
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20231027/4ab57c24/attachment.htm>