[arin-discuss] Legacy RSA

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, John Curran wrote:

> >Did this $50,000 gift to NANOG benefit the ARIN membership in advancing the purposes of ARIN by
> >$50,000?  No. It didn't.
> 
> Dean -
>  
>    The ARIN contribution to NANOG pays for the audio/video
>    recording of the NANOG meetings and real-time distribution
>    which allows for community remote participation (and one
>    hopes an improved awareness of operational matters such
>    as real-world routing table issues, etc.)   There are three
>    meetings annually, and both staff and equipment costs to
>    be covered to make this happen.

This describes _NANOG_ activites, not ARIN educational outreach.  Merit
should fund Nanog activities, not ARIN.  NANOG has apparently been
unable to get community support for its funding, apparently for very
good reason.  NANOG cronies are using ARIN improperly to fund and
support NANOG. This support for NANOG is improper.

Evidence has already been given that NANOG isn't really concerned about
"real-world routing issues", but is instead promoting the private
business interests of the 50 or so core participants, who include ARIN
Board Members. These business interests include (but aren't limited to)  
stateful anycast promotion, promotion of illegal email access, and
promotion of anti-spam operations against competitors of their spam
business.  This is probably why NANOG can't obtain its own funds,
properly.


The minutes also have a reference "Due to Merit's requirements for the
contribution,"  What were Merit's requirements for contribution?

>    This was moved in the 10 Jan 2004 Board meeting and
>    passed with Mr. Woodcock abstaining.  Mr. Vixie was not
>    a member of the ARIN Board at that time.  Minutes of
>    all the ARIN Board meetings are available online at
>    <http://www.arin.net/meetings/minutes/bot/>

The Jan 10 minutes show that the motion was made by Ray Plzak and
seconded by David Conrad.

I note that David Conrad shares office space with Paul Vixie, and also
participates in NANOG.  Conrad is conflicted.  Manning was absent from
the meeting, but is conflicted.  Curran is conflicted.  All these people
are closely connected to Vixie, who is reasonably suspected of ties to
organized crime because of the TRO.  I don't know about Plzak, yet.

Also, The IESG was discovered to have a policy where conflicted members
participate in discussions, but "abstain from voting". This is not
recusal, which requires no participation.  Did Mr. Woodcock actually
recuse himself? Or did he merely not vote while participating in the
discussion and influencing the decision?  Same question for Mr. Manning, 
who was not present for the vote?

>    I'd like to thank you for your concern on this matter,
>    but do not believe that there is an actual issue to be
>    addressed.

I notice the Jan 10 agenda has this issue buried in the part on
"Discussion of Indemnification". As hard as you are trying to sweep this
under the table, I'm not convinced.  I smell smoke and I'd like to put
out the fire....

We still have 4 conflicted Board Members and no ARIN educational
benefit.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000