On Jan 8, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote: > Let me see if I've got this right -- you think ARIN should change their > policies,
Not policies. Operations. Or rather, how ARIN communicates and obtains buy-in from the operational community regarding operations that affect that community. > but _you_ are not willing to put in any personal effort to make > it happen, right? Not to speak for Randy, but I believe he is suggesting the onus is on ARIN to engage the community their activities impact, rather than the community engaging ARIN. > Can you think of any good reason why _any_ organization should care about > the opinions of someone with that attitude? Liability? Folks don't have an option regarding where they get some of the services. An (imperfect) analogy: in the SF bay area, the monopoly provider of pipeline natural gas, PG&E, appears to have made the operational decision to cut costs in inspecting high risk gas lines and not upgrade those pipelines (despite receiving permission from the CA PUC to bill ratepayers for the upgrade). Pragmatically speaking, the vast majority of folks affected by the operation of those pipelines most likely had no interest in making a personal effort to ensure PG&E does what they say they'll do. In Sept 2009, one of those high risk pipelines exploded. I imagine PG&E now cares a great deal about the folks who were affected as you can probably already hear the class action lawsuit lawyers revving their engines. Regards, -drc
