On 1/11/2011 12:57 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Or not. It may be that network operators (not just the ones that show up at
ARIN meetings and are on PPML) are happy with the existing communication
channels and that additional structures to encourage participation and input in
the ARIN region
On Jan 11, 2011, at 6:15 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/11/2011 12:57 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Or not. It may be that network operators (not just the ones that show up at
ARIN meetings and are on PPML) are happy with the existing communication
channels and that additional structures to
On 1/9/2011 5:27 PM, John Curran wrote:
Excellent question. To the extent that it is best practices on these types of
services, then that's relatively easy for ARIN to interface with... if it is
specific direction to ARIN to do xyz, then ultimately the decision rests with
the ARIN Board
On Jan 10, 2011, at 7:25 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 1/9/2011 5:27 PM, John Curran wrote:
Excellent question. To the extent that it is best practices on these types
of
services, then that's relatively easy for ARIN to interface with... if it is
specific direction to ARIN to do xyz, then
On 1/10/2011 5:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss. The fact that there is
more
traffic on ppml dealing with the NRPM than there is on arin-discuss dealing
with other
issues is a matter of where the members choose to focus their attention more
PPML is a forum for the community (not just ARIN members, the entire
community).
Good to know. I was under the impression that it was member only.
Nope... Anyone interested can subscribe to PPML.
There is a separate mailing list... arin-discuss which is for members of
ARIN to discuss
Owen,
On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a variety
public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must make use of. In
other areas of public service provision, there are things like public
utilities
Owen,
On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss.
Just to be clear, arin-discuss is limited to ARIN members?
They can and sometimes do discuss operational matters there.
Operational matters that impact more than members?
The ACSP
Lee,
On Jan 9, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
Are you saying ARIN needs an ombudsman function to make sure the Board
doesn't delay implementation of things the community wants while it figures
out whether doing such things will prevent it from doing other things the
community wants?
On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:52 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Owen,
On Jan 10, 2011, at 3:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Members may bring any topic of interest to arin-discuss.
Just to be clear, arin-discuss is limited to ARIN members?
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
They can and sometimes do
On Jan 10, 2011, at 8:23 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Owen,
On Jan 8, 2011, at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a
variety public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must make
use of. In other areas of public service
On Jan 8, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
I think that's a bit of what we've been trying to do with the Best
Current Operational
Practices BoFs. We need a place where operators can discuss and document
BCOPs.
While I think BCOPs (and BCOP BoFs) are a great idea, I guess the question
is
I suspect part of the issue is that ARIN is a monopoly provider of a
variety public services that folks unrelated (directly) to ARIN must
make use of. In other areas of public service provision, there are
things like public utilities commissions that (in theory) ensure the
monopoly service
On Jan 8, 2011, at 1:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Lee,
On Jan 8, 2011, at 4:40 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
I think that's a bit of what we've been trying to do with the Best Current
Operational Practices BoFs. We need a place where operators can discuss and
document BCOPs.
While I think
14 matches
Mail list logo
