On Feb 5, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, John Curran wrote: >> You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence >> all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review >> during the development process. > > Thanks, John. I'm aware of the legal review, as well as the AC and board > "gateways" to policy adoption. I don't have any recommendation for improving > that process, per se - just a healthy dose of skepticism that it will always > result in alignment with the law, especially given that the legal authority > of ARIN isn't clearly defined. > > > On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> As to reflecting community standards, I'm not sure what better measure of >> "community standards" >> one could propose beyond a bottom-up open consensus driven policy process >> such as what >> we have today. > > Owen, my point is that the ARIN community does not necessarily reflect the > community at large. Just like the common standards within the mafia > community aren't necessarily aligned with the broader standards of civil > society. > It reflects those who care to participate. The process is open to anyone in the community that want to. That's as close as any body ever comes to such a thing.
Just like you don't get better politicians unless you vote, you can't get better ARIN policy unless you participate. > If ARIN is appointed in an official capacity (i.e. granted such authority by > the government, or by popular vote etc) to determine specific community > standards then we don't have to worry. Otherwise, ARIN has to work carefully > to ensure that it doesn't go awry. In that sense, the relative smallness of > the ARIN community and ARIN's organizational momentum (natural to any > self-preserving organization) should be of concern. > An interesting perspective. Owen
