I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a big cop out to me.
A) If ARIN is so concerned about the potential depletion of v4 resources, they should be taking a more proactive roll in proposing potential solutions and start conversation rather then saying that the users should come up with a proposal which they then get a big vote one.
Well... ARIN is structured with a bottom-up community driven policy process. That has
served us well for many years, and, I think that changing it would be a mistake. However,
in this case, that means that the following people are specifically excluded from proposing
policy:
The BoT (other than via the emergency process)
ARIN Staff
Policy proposals must come from the community. Either at large, or, from the ARIN AC
which is an elected subgroup of the community tasked with developing good policy for
ARIN. The AC itself depends largely on community input for what kind of policy the
community wants us to develop, and, at the end of the day, community consensus is
required in order for a proposal to become policy.
B) Again, while it might be the IETF's "job", shouldn't the group trusted with the management of the IP space at least have a public opinion about these solutions are designed. Ensuring that they are designed is such a way to guarantee maximum adoption of v6 and thus reducing the potential for depletion of v4 space.
The IETF specifically does not accept organizational input and requires instead that
individuals participate. This is one of the great strengths, and, also one of the great
weaknesses of the IETF. However, it means that even if ARIN could develop a public
opinion (which would have to come from the ARIN community by some process which
we don't really have as yet), this opinion wouldn't mean much in the IETF's eyes.
C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it is being spent in a reasonable manner, and the fees are where they need to be to sustain the organizations reasonable operations, but perhaps not.
I will leave this to the BoT to answer, but, I know that the treasurer presents a report
at every members meeting which provides at least some high level details. I believe
that as a non-profit corporation, a great deal of openness is required for accountability
to ARIN members.
Mr Curran, given the response you've seen from the group, and in particular the argument that most CEO's or Officers of firms will simply sign off on what they IT staff tells them (as they have little to no understanding of the situation), can you explain what exactly you are hoping to achieve by heaping on yet an additional requirement to the already over burdensome process of receiving an IPv4 allocation?
I can't say what Mr. Curran expects, but, here's how I see it:
1. If an officer of the organization signs off, then, that means that both the
organization and the officer personally can be held accountable for any
fraud that is later uncovered. If the officer is an idiot, perhaps he'll just
sign, but, most officers I have experience with don't do that. They usually
engage in some level of verification before signing such a statement.
2. Organizations which are submitting fraudulent requests may be less
willing to do that when someone has to make a signed attestation under
penalty of perjury. Especially when that person has fiduciary liability to
the organization as an officer.
3. There are lots of things people will do if they don't think there are potential
consequences. A signed attestation by a corporate officer dramatically
reduces the apparent lack of consequences to a fraudulent application.
Sure, there will always be criminals and criminals may not be bothered
by this signed attestation process. However, having it does give the ARIN
legal team a better shot at them as well.
I am not a lawyer and these are just my own opinions.
Owen
