On Oct 24, 2024, at 6:36 PM, Lee Howard via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> wrote:
In the spirit of offering constructive feedback, I would like to describe what I would like to see at ARIN Public Policy meetings. Broadly, the purpose of the Public Policy Meetings is to discuss policy and policy proposals. The purpose of the Members Meeting is to provide the Members with information about the operation of the organization, especially as it will help guide governance, including elections. ... I think this organization will better align the work in each meeting with the purpose of the meeting. Lee - Thanks for sending this! I also noted your comment at the microphone that we should never shortchange public policy discussions at these meetings—a view that I strongly agree with (and observed that, thanks to Hollis and Chair Sandiford’s excellent moderation, this was not an issue yesterday). As you are aware, we tended to have a stronger delineation between the Public Policy Meeting and the Members Meeting in the past, and it is true that we could organize that way in the future. However, I believe there are a few factors to consider before we commit to a strict delineation – 1. In recent years, we’ve been able to “expand the tent” of ARIN members; in other words, members are no longer limited to ISPs and large organizations. Due to changes in membership structure, nearly every customer is now an ARIN member. As such, those participating in our public policy discussions are largely ARIN members—individuals from organizations that pay fees to support ARIN, receive services from ARIN, and can (if they wish) become general members and participate in ARIN’s governance. 2. We are also in an era where ARIN is engaged in many activities beyond just number resource policy, which have the potential for significant implications for all of ARIN’s customers. For example, topics such as the evolution and deployment of RPKI services, the current ICP-2 update activities, and our cybersecurity efforts are not public policy per se, but they have equally significant potential impacts on ARIN’s customers. As such, these topics deserve to be informed by feedback from our entire customer community. 3. Finally, I note that ARIN is committed to capacity development within the ARIN community—i.e., we aim to improve the knowledge and experience of our entire community. Over time, this has proven to help grow our pool of volunteers who advance to important roles such as the ARIN AC, the ASO AC, and the ARIN Board of Trustees. Those participating in our meetings presently gain broad exposure to all aspects of ARIN – not just number resource policy development – and I do worry that a strict delineation of the Public Policy Meeting and the Members Meeting could hinder an important element of cross-pollination that has historically bolstered leadership development from within ARIN’s community. To be clear, I am not saying that a clear distinction between the two aspects of the meeting is no possible, but rather that there are potential downsides that should be considered and balanced against any benefits we hope to achieve by such delineation. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
