Huberman, David

Candidate Speech

Photo of David Huberman
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
David.Huberman@Microsoft.com

Jump to statements of support

Candidate Questionnaire

Provide a brief biography of recent experience, associations, and affiliations relevant to serving on the Board of Trustees.

I’ve worked in the backbone engineering industry for 14 years, most of which has been spent at ARIN. I served ARIN as a senior analyst in 1999 and 2000, then again from 2003 to 2013, ending my tenure there as a Principal. Today I am part of Vijay Gill’s AS8075 at Microsoft Corporation, where I am developing and running a program to fully integrate native IPv6 inter-connectivity across all services and devices.

The most important thing you can know about my experiences is that while I was paid as an ARIN staffer for many years (and am thus intimately familiar with everything-ARIN), ARIN is a huge part of who I am. It is a company I care deeply about, and the role it performs in the backbone engineering world is of paramount importance. ARIN was never just a job for me. It was something I was, and am uncommonly passionate about.

In turn, I am running for a Board seat because my love of ARIN is so deep that I wish to continue being part of ARIN in a meaningful way. I want to be part of ARIN’s future and help shape its direction in 2014 and beyond. The best way I know how to do this is as a member of the Board.

What Internet-related services do you or your organization provide?

Microsoft Corporation is one of the largest providers of internet services and devices in the world. Microsoft’s portfolio includes Bing, Skype, XBOX Live, Windows Live, Windows Azure, and numerous other internet-related products.

What conflicts, real or perceived, might arise should you be elected to the Board?

The only conflict that would arise were I to be elected to ARIN’s Board would be any formal request for services Microsoft might make to ARIN. To remediate that conflict, I would recuse myself from all tickets between Microsoft and ARIN.

Describe any limitations on your ability to attend Board and Public Policy Meetings in person or to serve the entirety of a 3-year term.

No limitations whatsoever. I enjoy the full support of the Microsoft Corporation for any and all time and travel required of an active Board member.

How do you foresee ARIN’s function, scale, or role changing in the future?

ARIN’s role and scale both need to change significantly in the near-term future:

  1. IPv4 is near exhaustion at ARIN. As a result, ARIN’s role needs to be more focused on two major efforts:
    • effective stewardship of a burgeoning transfer market; and
    • a laser-like focus on customer service and tools.
  2. ARIN has devoted a lot of operational budget on outreach activities over the last 13 years. These efforts have been laudable and measurably successful. Absent further guidance from the ARIN community, however, ARIN needs to rehone its budget to other priorities.

What is your opinion of the principles outlined in RFCs 2050 and 2050bis?

RFC2050 is obsolete. Operational reality is markedly different than the time during which RFC2050 was authored.

RFC2050bis is an interesting document which takes a very different approach than RFC2050. Instead of a lot of prescriptive text about “how to run a registry”, the document is more concerned with Internet Governance and very basic principles of the Registry. I support the principles of RFC2050bis whole-heartedly, and believe it is an excellent replacement for RFC2050

What would broaden participation in the ARIN public policy development process?

There are two strong changes ARIN could make to broaden participation in the policy development process:

  1. ARIN needs to stop having stand-alone meetings, and better engage and align with the NANOG community.
  2. The ARIN PPML mailing list needs to be deprecated, and integrated fully into NANOG-L. This would have a few benefits. It would ensure policy discussions would have the widest possible technically-capable audience watching and participating. It would significantly improve the signal:noise ratio because it wouldn’t be the same 10 people talking to each other year after year. PPML is too dominated by a small number of participants, and that needs to change for the ARIN policy development process to improve.

What is ARIN’s role, if any, in promoting IPv6 adoption?

ARIN has completed its mission in the promotion of IPv6 adoption, I think. ARIN spent a lot of time and money executing myriad efforts to inform every community it could find that IPv4 was depleting and that it was necessary to immediately begin efforts to start dual stacking networks.

There is no more effort necessary, in my opinion, and ARIN should re-focus its budget accordingly.

What are ARIN’s greatest challenges and how do you see ARIN addressing them?

ARIN’s greatest challenge is the pending ARIN-exhaustion of IPv4 and the effects this will have on the role of the organization. To address this major change in focus, ARIN needs to make two important steps:

  1. ARIN needs to focus on providing stewardship over the transfer market, and ensuring that internal processes and procedures are streamlined to make the customer experience relatively painless. This will require changes in not only how ARIN approaches staffing and customer service, but also changes in NRPM. It requires leadership from ARIN and its board to prompt changes in NRPM that are business-rational. To evolve from an IPv4-focused registry to a proper and respected steward of a modern transfer market will require a real spirit of teamwork between ARIN’s Board, AC, staff, and the policy making community.
  2. ARIN needs to have a laser-like focus on exactly what services customers use each and every day, and what services they value. Once that’s identified, ARIN needs to budget accordingly, and the staff must work quicky towards providing these services using modern software and technology.

What is the appropriate scope for ARIN’s organizational activities and responsibilities?

ARIN is a numbers registry, and no more. Unless the membership and the policy making community decide otherwise, the appropriate scope for ARIN should be limited to:

  • registering numbers uniquely
  • providing rock-solid technical services like Whois, reverse DNS, and RPKI
  • participating in the NRO and supporting its goals to the extent the operating budget allows

What is your position on the multi-stakeholder Internet governance?

In short: it is one the greatest things about the evolution of the internet, and ARIN should always ensure it is part of that process, and never working against it.

 

Statements of Support

A forum for statements of support for this candidate is provided below via comments. Submit a comment to make your own statement of support for this candidate or simply view what others have posted. Submissions will be moderated before posting.