On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > i just think that we, as a culture, have let things get waaaay out of > whack. john is paid to defend the status grow.
I like that: "status grow". It seems pretty clear to me that, as humans, we're not very good at organizational contraction. We're much better at expanding scope, even until it produces undesirable consequences. Competition is a friend in such scenarios, when it's allowed... As are revolutions, when competition is not allowed. In John's case (on behalf of ARIN as is befitting his role) he welcomes change as long as it's funneled through the ARIN-managed channels. In other words, change is welcome as long as it reinforces ARIN's role as facilitator. Unfortunately, the gauntlet of "policy weenies" that influence ARIN don't necessarily represent the "community" as they might claim - they represent themselves, their ideologies, etc. So if you want the ARIN system to change, it's your choice whether to engage within that system or outside it. Neither seems very useful to me; we can just ignore ARIN as alternatives emerge, and ARIN can catch up or not. Which, astoundingly, leads to an operational comment / question: As IPv4 trading is already taking place, what are you (as operators) planning to do when asked to route prefixes that have been bought/sold? Will you accept alternative (whois) registry sources? Will you accept legal documentation proving ownership and/or right-to-use, as an alternative to registry validation? Cheers, -Benson
