All, Bart has provided good leadership for the amateur data community here in "Pugetopolis." All amateurs would be well served by placing Bart on the ARDC board.  We should do this as soon as possible. 73 from Dan at K7MM ________________________________ From: Bart Kus <me(a)bartk.us> To: AMPRNet working group <44net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:22 PM Subject: [44net] Running for ARDC director position (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Hello, I'd like to join the board of ARDC.  Having studied the situation a bit, it looks to me like ARDC is in a bad situation right now. Should Brian get hit by a bus, the corporation will no longer have any directors or officers.  Its assets would then be disseminated by a court during the dismantling of the corporation.  This means the address space would be given away to whoever the court decides, which could include ARIN for re-purposing as commercial space. I'm not 100% on this, since there is scant documentation on the heritage of 44/8 and its present legal ownership status.  I believe it's "legacy space", but ARIN doesn't seem to agree: the netblock suffix does not end with -Z.  As "legacy space" there should be some chain of ownership documented somewhere, and I'm just not finding it. Having read the bylaws, I also haven't managed to find how I might go about becoming elected.  The processes for replacement and removal of directors are defined (majority vote of board members), but I don't see how elections to vacant positions are supposed to take place.  I'd also like to say that a board electing itself is not the best model of governance for a non-profit corporation. Non-profits are supposed to serve some need: in this case the needs of amateurs who wish to make use of 44/8 space.  I'd like to see a governance model where the users elect the directors who best represent their needs.  This is one crucial governance change that I think absolutely needs to happen. Aside from governance, there are several technical issues that I'd like to see brought up to speed with modern standards, and published as part of official interface specifications for AMPRnet.  I don't want to get too detailed in this email, but a top-level list of technical things I'd push for as director includes: 1) Support for BGP 2) Support for IPsec(AH) 3) Support for anycasting 4) An improved gateway registration process with IP ownership verification 5) Support for DNS delegation 6) Support for DNSSEC signing 7) Deployment of multiple regional Internet gateways to remove the UCSD single point of failure 8) Adoption of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol 9) Publication of official multi-platform software which simplifies the AMPRnet user experience I've experienced opposition on implementing points 3 and 5 so far, and I'm reluctant to attempt any more of these agenda items without some changes to how the organization makes decisions.  There are no technical blockers here, as all of these technologies I mentioned are widely used on the Internet today.  However, it's nearly impossible to achieve technical leadership when decisions require universal consensus, and/or the decision making process is undefined.  AMPR needs more board members who can push such technologies forward, and participate in the official decision making process while relying on their deep technical expertise to ensure their votes are sound. In terms of my qualifications for board duty, I founded the HamWAN organization in Washington which has deployed a regional microwave network, uses AMPRnet IP space, and has based its standard designs on the latest & greatest hardware and software has to offer. Professionally, I'd been running Internet services since 1996. Presently I work on routing for a major cloud provider.  I'd like to bring the same kind of innovation to AMPRnet as I did with HamWAN. On the governance standpoint, I drafted the HamWAN bylaws in very intentional ways.  Ways that empower the volunteers who are doing the active work that contributes to progress.  Governance overhead is minimal so everyone can just mostly focus on the problems at hand. So, what are the next steps here? --Bart _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Bart Kus <me(a)bartk.us> wrote: 44/8 is considered legacy space as it's inception was prior to 1997. ARIN chooses not to serve us as Brian has chosen not to agree nor disagree with the Legacy services agreement as to do so would incur costs. https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/ Personally, I believe this is a wise decision as it would introduce costs and rules that would ultimately destroy the network. (See above link) As for a chain of ownership, all you need to do is look toward 'whois' for the netblock. Wikipedia has a nice article about the history of ampr.organd 44/8. ... As for voting members, running for office, etc.... I don't believe 44net is incorporated or a non-profit. I don't believe there is a board of directors nor shareholders. Thus, I think it's a little premature to call for candidacy until there is a board to campaign for a seat upon. I don't recall reading any bylaws either. If there was, there would be legal requirements under incorporation as well as IRS filings which I don't believe exist. 44/8 is a special case. In many aspects, it's a miniature IANA in that the entire netblock covers the entire globe and not any particular country. Personally, I feel that to keep it fair, one or two representatives should represent the regions they are part of... one from north america, one from south america, europe, australia, asia, africa, etc... From there, the foundations can be written and developed. Last thing that we want is a IFNA like scenario (for those old enough to remember). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cm6EFYktRQ - BBS Documentary Video on Fidonet (the history and story of with the original players - of which I'm seeing many parallels happening here.. history repeating?)