From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Feb 1 14:49:41 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 11:49:41 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson >Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:03 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election > > >[ARIN agrees that discussion to recall Board members, to conduct >investigations of ARIN expenditures, and to stop certain ARIN >expenditures does not violate the ARIN AUP.] > >On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> I would like to request that the membership list be reviewed before >> any further voting. It is my belief that the membership list is >> inaccurate and that at least 990 (nine hundred and ninety) of the names >> on the membership list belong to people who are no longer employed by >> their organizations and belong to organizations that are defunct, >> and thus are no longer qualified to be on the list of members. > >Where did you get this list of people? The Tooth Fairy visited me and told me that 990 of the names are fraudulent paper companies installed by the Taliban. I can't share who they are because I'm afraid the London Bankers who control the world government will come after me if I do. But, ARIN can find out who they are by calling everyone on the membership roles - as I have requested. >The list on the website does not >list the names of people, but the names of companies. >But even if the people on whatever list you have are no longer employed, >their former company is still an ARIN member. The member company must supply a person who is a contact and represents the company. Voting for example requires that the company make a vote, this is done through the designated contact. If every member of ARIN failed to supply a contact name, votes could not even occur at all. Members must be contactable. That is the mechanism for a member to conduct operations. If they are not they must be purged or moved to an inactive status where their membership does not count in the quorum calculations. >So your claim about >people "no longer employeed" doesn't seem to have merit. But I'd like >to know where you found a list of names. Contact names and member >postal addresses are a necessary part of the right of members to contact >other members, but ARIN doesn't seem to have that data on the web. > >It seems strangely coincident that you think 990 (exactly the number >that must be removed to make a quorum with 196 votes) should be removed >from the membership roll. Yes, it is interesting. I noticed that myself and asked the Tooth Fairy about it. He told me to go find Deep Throat and ask about that. > Where did you get this number? Please post the >990 names you've collected. > >> Regardless of whether a network or business paid dues or a fee at one >> time that put them on the membership roles, if they are bankrupt or >> defunct or have ceased operations, they no longer exist as an entity, >> and a nonexistent entity cannot be a member. > >Merely being in bankruptcy or having ceased network operations doesn't >terminate membership. > No, but bankruptcy laws require that the organization in bankruptcy supply the contact name of someone who can bring the business to an orderly closure. Those members are not a problem since their proxies are still reachable. However, companies that have gone bankrupt and have disappeared off the face of the earth, leaving no contact behind, or companies that have simply gone out of business and don't exist as a legal entity any longer, these must be purged. As I said, a non-existent entity cannot be a member. If it could I could submit the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus as ARIN members. Actually, I think that both of them are on the list of 990. >> Suggestions to make changes to the bylaws are not appropriate at this >> time. Bylaw changes require an existing board, and since the >> legitimacy of the existing board is at question, it cannot make bylaw >> changes. > >Bylaw changes do not require a Board under the Virginia statute. The >membership can vote bylaws in directly. Except as you have already pointed out not enough members are voting to make any vote valid. Thus that isn't an option. >The Board can make changes only >to those bylaws that the membership has not exempted from change by the >Board. It doesn't work the other way around. > And nothing in the current rules prevents the Board from purging nonexistent or non-contactable, or fraudulent members from the roles. You know, the ironic thing here is that some months ago during the IPv4<->IPv6 debates, I suggested that ARIN start proceedings to review the IPv4 assignments it had made to see if they were still in use - and pull back the unused ones. I got shouted down because people waxed eloquent about how the small number of IPv4 recoverable through reclamation efforts wouldn't be worth the effort. How, you have come along and with one fell swoop you've now forced the issue. ARIN will have no choice now but to purge the roles and start reclaiming abandonded IPv4 - which is what I wanted all along. Thanks, Dean! :-) Ted From dean at av8.com Fri Feb 1 16:57:43 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:57:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >Where did you get this list of people? > > The Tooth Fairy visited me and told me that 990 of the names are fraudulent > paper companies installed by the Taliban. Ah. I wouldn't have guessed this in a million years. The "Tooth Fairy" isn't a credible source. > >Merely being in bankruptcy or having ceased network operations doesn't > >terminate membership. > > No, but bankruptcy laws require that the organization in bankruptcy > supply the contact name of someone who can bring the business to an > orderly closure. Given your above source, I hesitate to respond further. But I've been meaning to propose changes to the NPRM on bankruptcy, and it is clear that many people seem to misunderstand bankruptcy. Bankruptcy doesn't necessarilly lead to closure, orderly or otherwise. Bankruptcy is a legal procedure where creditors are _prevented_ from seizing assets and thereby shutting down or interrupting the business until a court approves. Creditors can also seek to impose bankruptcy to obtain court supervision. The outcome of various chapters of bankruptcy depends on the chapter of law and lots of other factors, and can be credit reorganization, partial liquidation, complete liquidation, etc. A business in bankruptcy still exists as a legal entity, and can still exercise its membership rights in ARIN. A business cannot cease to exist until _after_ it has exited bankruptcy, since it is under court supervision. So your premise is entirely faulty. > >> Suggestions to make changes to the bylaws are not appropriate at this > >> time. Bylaw changes require an existing board, and since the > >> legitimacy of the existing board is at question, it cannot make bylaw > >> changes. > > > >Bylaw changes do not require a Board under the Virginia statute. The > >membership can vote bylaws in directly. > > Except as you have already pointed out not enough members are voting to make > any vote valid. Thus that isn't an option. Err, wrong again. In the last election, not enough members _voted_ (past tense) to constitute a quorum. A new vote can be held with appropriate notice, per the law. If a quorum exists, the vote is valid. > And nothing in the current rules prevents the Board from purging nonexistent > or non-contactable, or fraudulent members from the roles. That is essentially correct (well, the staff rather than the board, but that is a quibble). Disenfranchisement is, umm, a detailed-oriented task. They have to entirely truthful, and they have to make diligent efforts to contact the members, etc. But it is true that it can be done at anytime. > You know, the ironic thing here is that some months ago during the > IPv4<->IPv6 debates, I suggested that ARIN start proceedings to review > the IPv4 assignments it had made to see if they were still in use - > and pull back the unused ones. I got shouted down because people waxed > eloquent about how the small number of IPv4 recoverable through > reclamation efforts wouldn't be worth the effort. > > How, you have come along and with one fell swoop you've now forced the > issue. ARIN will have no choice now but to purge the roles and start > reclaiming abandonded IPv4 - which is what I wanted all along. > Thanks, Dean! :-) You seem to be confusing WHOIS contacts with the membership list. The evaluation of IPV4 address space usage by legacies, and the WHOIS contacts of legacies has no bearing on the current composition of the membership list. Most of the IPV4 Legacy's aren't ARIN members, and aren't listed in the 2945 members in the member list, even if they have WHOIS entries. Those listed in the membership list are members because they either joined or got direct allocations from ARIN; they are members. The composition of the membership list has no relation to the IPV4 legacy issues previously discussed. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From ml at t-b-o-h.net Fri Feb 1 17:26:09 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:26:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802012226.m11MQ9qc008442@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > The evaluation of IPV4 address space usage by legacies, and the WHOIS > contacts of legacies has no bearing on the current composition of the > membership list. Most of the IPV4 Legacy's aren't ARIN members, and > aren't listed in the 2945 members in the member list, even if they have > WHOIS entries. > Hi, Speaking of which, what efforts have been made to contact the IPV4 Legacies to let them know ARIN wants them to sign some paperwork and pay a fee? People I've talked to who weren't on this list had no ideas this existed. Tuc/TBOH From tedm at ipinc.net Fri Feb 1 17:51:14 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 14:51:14 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com] >Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 1:58 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election > > >On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> >Where did you get this list of people? >> >> The Tooth Fairy visited me and told me that 990 of the names are >fraudulent >> paper companies installed by the Taliban. > >Ah. I wouldn't have guessed this in a million years. The "Tooth Fairy" >isn't a credible source. > >> >Merely being in bankruptcy or having ceased network operations doesn't >> >terminate membership. >> >> No, but bankruptcy laws require that the organization in bankruptcy >> supply the contact name of someone who can bring the business to an >> orderly closure. > >Given your above source, I hesitate to respond further. But I've been >meaning to propose changes to the NPRM on bankruptcy, and it is clear >that many people seem to misunderstand bankruptcy. Bankruptcy doesn't >necessarilly lead to closure, orderly or otherwise. Bankruptcy is a >legal procedure where creditors are _prevented_ from seizing assets and >thereby shutting down or interrupting the business until a court >approves. Creditors can also seek to impose bankruptcy to obtain court >supervision. > >The outcome of various chapters of bankruptcy depends on the chapter of >law and lots of other factors, and can be credit reorganization, partial >liquidation, complete liquidation, etc. A business in bankruptcy still >exists as a legal entity, and can still exercise its membership rights >in ARIN. A business cannot cease to exist until _after_ it has exited >bankruptcy, since it is under court supervision. ALl of that is correct however... >So your premise is >entirely faulty. > No. Your explanation isn't complete. When a business enters bankruptcy the court-supervised entity that oversees the bankruptcy is _supposed_ to extract the money necessary to fund itself before the creditors get paid. But sometimes in the case of liquidation, years after the creditors are paid and the bankruptcy is for most intents and purposes completed, the money funding it runs out, the supervisor (usually a law firm) decides it is no longer profitable to oversee it - and then stops responding to any queries regarding the liquidated business unless they are compelled to do so by a court order. This is particularly the case when the business owners have lost significant sums and, wishing to escape further demands on what money they have left, flee the country. Your assuming that all bankruptcies are carried out with every party honoring their legal obligations for notification and response to operations queries, etc. This isn't the reality. Naturally as bankruptcy is a bad thing we would all like to see it used for it's intended purpose - reorganization so the company can get back on it's feet, and continue on. However, these bankruptcies are not the issue with the membership list and I think you know this and are conveniently ignoring it. And, furthermore your entirely ignoring that the majority of business failures simply don't end up in bankruptcy. Most simply close their doors, pay off their creditors, and the owners disappear into the night never to be heard from again. If they haven't contacted ARIN and left a forwarding address, or informed ARIN they are dissolving the organization, then they are still going to be listed as a member. The problem with the membership list is that until ARIN validates everyone and everything on it, your count of members is worth exactly the same as my count of 990 bogus members. I will repeat - I believe 990 of the members on the roles are invalid and bogus due to a wide variety of reasons - bankruptcies, business closings, etc. I am requesting ARIN validate all members on the list. Until that is done you have no grounds to claim ARIN is in violation of the law regarding quorum because your assertion of this violation is utterly dependent on BOTH the number of votes AND the number of legitimate members. >> >> Suggestions to make changes to the bylaws are not appropriate at this >> >> time. Bylaw changes require an existing board, and since the >> >> legitimacy of the existing board is at question, it cannot make bylaw >> >> changes. >> > >> >Bylaw changes do not require a Board under the Virginia statute. The >> >membership can vote bylaws in directly. >> >> Except as you have already pointed out not enough members are >voting to make >> any vote valid. Thus that isn't an option. > >Err, wrong again. In the last election, not enough members _voted_ (past >tense) to constitute a quorum. Wrong. You won't know this until all members on the list are validated. If ARIN validates the membership list and dscovers a minimum of 990 members on the roles at the time of the election were not really members (because the entities that made them up didn't exist any more) then the vote WAS valid since the quorum was met. It is not necessary to have another election. Either way, I don't see any way ARIN can get out of contacting all members on the list. ARIN can approach this either from my viewpoint - that the membership list is flawed - or from your viewpoint - that we need to re-vote. Re-voting WITHOUT contacting all members and reminding them they have to vote is obviously futile since we will just not meet quorum again. So, the logical approach is to contact everyone on the membership list and update the contact info at ARIN. If in the course of doing this you find 990 members who don't exist anymore, then there's no need to bother with a re-vote. > A new vote can be held with appropriate >notice, per the law. If a quorum exists, the vote was valid. > Ted From dean at av8.com Fri Feb 1 18:24:31 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 18:24:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <200802012226.m11MQ9qc008442@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> Message-ID: [ARIN agrees that discussion to recall Board members, to conduct investigations of ARIN expenditures, and to stop certain ARIN expenditures does not violate the ARIN AUP.] I've asked ARIN to disclose the legacies. ARIN hasn't responded. I've asked ARIN to notify legacies about our efforts to oppose the LRSA and about legacy rights before they accept Legacy RSA (LRSA) contracts. ARIN continues to accept LRSA's without any notice as far as I can tell. Some people are indeed complaining _after_ signing the LRSA, though. I just posted a cleaned example of offlist complaints I've been getting to ppml. Please post messages about the LRSA to places that might reach legacies. I suppose we can go through the allocation list, identify legacy blocks by date of change and use WHOIS to obtain contact information. This will get some, but not all. Remember to use the _oldest_ allocation list. --Dean On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote: > > > > The evaluation of IPV4 address space usage by legacies, and the WHOIS > > contacts of legacies has no bearing on the current composition of the > > membership list. Most of the IPV4 Legacy's aren't ARIN members, and > > aren't listed in the 2945 members in the member list, even if they have > > WHOIS entries. > > > Hi, > > Speaking of which, what efforts have been made to contact > the IPV4 Legacies to let them know ARIN wants them to sign some > paperwork and pay a fee? People I've talked to who weren't on this > list had no ideas this existed. > > Tuc/TBOH > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From dean at av8.com Fri Feb 1 19:15:10 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:15:10 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > No. Your explanation isn't complete. When a business enters bankruptcy > the court-supervised entity that oversees the bankruptcy is _supposed_ to > extract the money necessary to fund itself before the creditors get paid. > But sometimes in the case of liquidation, years after the creditors are paid > and the bankruptcy is for most intents and purposes completed, the money > funding it runs out, the supervisor (usually a law firm) decides it is no > longer profitable to oversee it - and then stops responding to any queries > regarding the liquidated business unless they are compelled to do so by a > court order. This is particularly the case when the business owners have > lost significant sums and, wishing to escape further demands on what money > they have left, flee the country. I suppose there are cases of impropriety by the appointed masters, but I don't know of any reason that should be especially rampant with ARIN members in bankruptcy. The potential for impropriety by the court-appointed master doesn't justify a corporation in disenfranchising all members in bankruptcy; It is not part of the Virginia statute and ARIN doesn't have this as a bylaw, so the issue is moot. It just isn't the case for ARIN, now. > The problem with the membership list is that until ARIN validates > everyone and everything on it, your count of members is worth exactly > the same as my count of 990 bogus members. Err, no. My count is based on the membership list published by ARIN. That list is the official list. You can challenge anyone on that list, even 990 members, but your challenge has to succeed before those members can be disenfranchised and removed from the roll. Until listed members are are no longer members, they are members. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jlewis at atlantic.net Fri Feb 1 19:16:09 2008 From: jlewis at atlantic.net (jlewis at atlantic.net) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:16:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > And, furthermore your entirely ignoring that the majority of business > failures simply don't end up in bankruptcy. Most simply close their doors, > pay off their creditors, and the owners disappear into the night never to > be heard from again. If they haven't contacted ARIN and left a forwarding > address, or informed ARIN they are dissolving the organization, then > they are still going to be listed as a member. Does ARIN consider non-paying members (especially members with multi-year past due balances) as members? I would guess that most companies that "go under" don't continue to pay their yearly dues. I think it's reasonable to suggest that non-paying members not be counted at least in matters of voting (they should have no vote) or in calculating quorum...since they have no vote. It should be trivial to do a "who's paid up, who's past due >X months?" weedout. It can probably even be done for any date in the past with just a bit of work. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | Senior Network Engineer | Atlantic.net | ________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key__________ From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Feb 1 20:02:36 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:02:36 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mr. Anderson posted a claim that the recent election of two members of the ARIN Board of Trustees was legally insufficient. Mr. Anderson's post in part is repeated here: >There was no quorum in (at least) last election of Board Members. At >least 10% of membership is required by the Virginia Nonstock Corporation >Act Section 13.1-849, in order to constitute a quorum. A membership >list of 2945 members therefore requires 295 votes to be cast. Only 196 >votes were actually cast, insufficient for a quorum. No quorum. No >election. So, Paul Vixie and Bill Manning are not on the ARIN Board of >Directors. A new election must be held that has a quorum. I am the Chairman of the ARIN Board of Trustees, and I am confident that the procedures followed by ARIN are democratic and conducted in accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Virginia law. Mr. Anderson's argument is based on reference to Section 13.1-849 of the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act, which is entitled "quorum and voting requirements for voting groups" and his reasoning on the words of paragraph (A). However, paragraph (D) of the same section specifically carves out the election of directors. Section 13.1-849(D) directs you instead to Section 13.1-852(A) which states that: "?Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast by the members entitled to vote in the election at a meeting at which a quorum is present." No percentage of membership is stated in Section 13.1-852 as a requirement for quorum. Mr. Anderson mistakenly reads the 10% membership requirement from 13.1-849 into this gap. That is in error. In fact, given that the legislature understood how to impose such a 10% membership requirement, as is demonstrated in Section 13.1-849 as cited by Mr. Anderson, the absence of that 10% membership requirement in these other portions of the statute is compelling. Further, the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act Section 13.1-846(B) allows, "When directors or officers are to be elected by members, the Bylaws may provide that such elections may be conducted by mail." Note that ARIN's Bylaws, Article VI, Section 4, paragraphs (g) and (h) set forth the voting procedure for election of the Trustees. Specifically, elections are conducted during a 7-day election period electronically via the Internet, *not by an in-person meeting*, and voting is open and available to all general members. Because of this electronic procedure, each member participates in the election process, receiving four e-mail reminders to vote during the week that the election takes place. As every general member utilizes Internet connectivity (which relates to the very purpose of this organization) in interactions with ARIN, it has been our consistent position that all general members "participate" in the election process regardless of their physical location. (It is also worth noting that, as a corporate law matter, the concept of "quorum" does not relate to the number of votes cast at a meeting but rather the level of participation. Corporate practice simply does not rely upon votes cast as the method for determining whether quorum requirements have been satisfied.) Notwithstanding, in light of the topics raised, I believe it would be helpful to put a placeholder to discuss voting procedures and membership issues on the agenda of the ARIN Member Meeting that will take place in Denver, Colorado on April 9, 2008. At that meeting, anyone who wants to raise a concern about modifying the Articles or Bylaws to more explicitly describe the procedures that we have consistently and democratically followed would be welcome to raise that issue. If Mr. Anderson disagrees with these procedures and wishes to suggest even better ones, we would welcome his input in person or via remote participation. I've provided this brief response today for sake of timeliness; additional legal and practical arguments undoubtedly apply here. /John John Curran Chairman, ARIN Board of Trustees From dean at av8.com Fri Feb 1 22:40:46 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 22:40:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Mr. Curran ignores the last phrase in Section 13.1-852(A) which states "Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast by the members entitled to vote in the election at a meeting at which a quorum is present." A quorum must be present before cumulative votes can be counted. Section 13.1-849 specifies the quorum requirements when the quorum requirements are not specified in the bylaws. No quorum, no election. --Dean On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > Mr. Anderson posted a claim that the recent election of two members > of the ARIN Board of Trustees was legally insufficient. > > Mr. Anderson's post in part is repeated here: > >There was no quorum in (at least) last election of Board Members. At > >least 10% of membership is required by the Virginia Nonstock Corporation > >Act Section 13.1-849, in order to constitute a quorum. A membership > >list of 2945 members therefore requires 295 votes to be cast. Only 196 > >votes were actually cast, insufficient for a quorum. No quorum. No > >election. So, Paul Vixie and Bill Manning are not on the ARIN Board of > >Directors. A new election must be held that has a quorum. > > I am the Chairman of the ARIN Board of Trustees, and I am confident > that the procedures followed by ARIN are democratic and conducted in > accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Virginia law. > > Mr. Anderson's argument is based on reference to Section 13.1-849 of > the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act, which is entitled "quorum and > voting requirements for voting groups" and his reasoning on the words > of paragraph (A). However, paragraph (D) of the same section > specifically carves out the election of directors. Section 13.1-849(D) > directs you instead to Section 13.1-852(A) which states that: > "?Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, directors > are elected by a plurality of the votes cast by the members entitled to > vote in the election at a meeting at which a quorum is present." > No percentage of membership is stated in Section 13.1-852 as a > requirement for quorum. Mr. Anderson mistakenly reads the 10% > membership requirement from 13.1-849 into this gap. That is in error. > In fact, given that the legislature understood how to impose such a 10% > membership requirement, as is demonstrated in Section 13.1-849 as cited > by Mr. Anderson, the absence of that 10% membership requirement in > these other portions of the statute is compelling. > > Further, the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act Section 13.1-846(B) > allows, "When directors or officers are to be elected by members, the > Bylaws may provide that such elections may be conducted by mail." > Note that ARIN's Bylaws, Article VI, Section 4, paragraphs (g) and > (h) set forth the voting procedure for election of the Trustees. > Specifically, elections are conducted during a 7-day election period > electronically via the Internet, *not by an in-person meeting*, and > voting is open and available to all general members. Because of this > electronic procedure, each member participates in the election > process, receiving four e-mail reminders to vote during the week that > the election takes place. As every general member utilizes Internet > connectivity (which relates to the very purpose of this organization) > in interactions with ARIN, it has been our consistent position that all > general members "participate" in the election process regardless of > their physical location. (It is also worth noting that, as a corporate > law matter, the concept of "quorum" does not relate to the number > of votes cast at a meeting but rather the level of participation. > Corporate practice simply does not rely upon votes cast as the > method for determining whether quorum requirements have > been satisfied.) > > Notwithstanding, in light of the topics raised, I believe it would > be helpful to put a placeholder to discuss voting procedures and > membership issues on the agenda of the ARIN Member Meeting > that will take place in Denver, Colorado on April 9, 2008. At that > meeting, anyone who wants to raise a concern about modifying > the Articles or Bylaws to more explicitly describe the procedures > that we have consistently and democratically followed would be > welcome to raise that issue. If Mr. Anderson disagrees with these > procedures and wishes to suggest even better ones, we would > welcome his input in person or via remote participation. > > I've provided this brief response today for sake of timeliness; > additional legal and practical arguments undoubtedly apply here. > > /John > > John Curran > Chairman, ARIN Board of Trustees > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From dean at av8.com Fri Feb 1 23:02:27 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 23:02:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: As to the matter of "participation", Mr. Curran is correct that the key issue is the level of participation in an electronic or mail-in vote. However, there is no participation where email is merely sent, but there no response. That communication is one-way. Two-way communication is required for "participation". Perhaps one can indeed respond "I don't want to vote" or "none". But if there is no response, then there is no participation. A dead member, who obviously can't respond, also obviously didn't partcipate in the election after death. Mr. Curran claims incredibly that the dead do participate because he sent them an email. This is at odds with contract law, too. A response is required. Perhaps, interestingly, the LPF was one of the first corporations to have electronic voting in 1994. Don Knuth (Yes, the famous Knuth) was a particularly difficult case, because he didnt' want to receive any email. But the lawyers said we had to send it. If we didnt' send it, we wouldn't have offered participation, and it has to be offered. Knuth didn't have to vote but we had to send the email. Knuth agreed to this, with my deepest apologies. --Dean On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Dean Anderson wrote: > Mr. Curran ignores the last phrase in Section 13.1-852(A) which states > > "Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, directors > are elected by a plurality of the votes cast by the members entitled to > vote in the election at a meeting at which a quorum is present." > > A quorum must be present before cumulative votes can be counted. Section > 13.1-849 specifies the quorum requirements when the quorum requirements > are not specified in the bylaws. > > No quorum, no election. > > --Dean > > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > > > Mr. Anderson posted a claim that the recent election of two members > > of the ARIN Board of Trustees was legally insufficient. > > > > Mr. Anderson's post in part is repeated here: > > >There was no quorum in (at least) last election of Board Members. At > > >least 10% of membership is required by the Virginia Nonstock Corporation > > >Act Section 13.1-849, in order to constitute a quorum. A membership > > >list of 2945 members therefore requires 295 votes to be cast. Only 196 > > >votes were actually cast, insufficient for a quorum. No quorum. No > > >election. So, Paul Vixie and Bill Manning are not on the ARIN Board of > > >Directors. A new election must be held that has a quorum. > > > > I am the Chairman of the ARIN Board of Trustees, and I am confident > > that the procedures followed by ARIN are democratic and conducted in > > accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Virginia law. > > > > Mr. Anderson's argument is based on reference to Section 13.1-849 of > > the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act, which is entitled "quorum and > > voting requirements for voting groups" and his reasoning on the words > > of paragraph (A). However, paragraph (D) of the same section > > specifically carves out the election of directors. Section 13.1-849(D) > > directs you instead to Section 13.1-852(A) which states that: > > "?Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, directors > > are elected by a plurality of the votes cast by the members entitled to > > vote in the election at a meeting at which a quorum is present." > > No percentage of membership is stated in Section 13.1-852 as a > > requirement for quorum. Mr. Anderson mistakenly reads the 10% > > membership requirement from 13.1-849 into this gap. That is in error. > > In fact, given that the legislature understood how to impose such a 10% > > membership requirement, as is demonstrated in Section 13.1-849 as cited > > by Mr. Anderson, the absence of that 10% membership requirement in > > these other portions of the statute is compelling. > > > > Further, the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act Section 13.1-846(B) > > allows, "When directors or officers are to be elected by members, the > > Bylaws may provide that such elections may be conducted by mail." > > Note that ARIN's Bylaws, Article VI, Section 4, paragraphs (g) and > > (h) set forth the voting procedure for election of the Trustees. > > Specifically, elections are conducted during a 7-day election period > > electronically via the Internet, *not by an in-person meeting*, and > > voting is open and available to all general members. Because of this > > electronic procedure, each member participates in the election > > process, receiving four e-mail reminders to vote during the week that > > the election takes place. As every general member utilizes Internet > > connectivity (which relates to the very purpose of this organization) > > in interactions with ARIN, it has been our consistent position that all > > general members "participate" in the election process regardless of > > their physical location. (It is also worth noting that, as a corporate > > law matter, the concept of "quorum" does not relate to the number > > of votes cast at a meeting but rather the level of participation. > > Corporate practice simply does not rely upon votes cast as the > > method for determining whether quorum requirements have > > been satisfied.) > > > > Notwithstanding, in light of the topics raised, I believe it would > > be helpful to put a placeholder to discuss voting procedures and > > membership issues on the agenda of the ARIN Member Meeting > > that will take place in Denver, Colorado on April 9, 2008. At that > > meeting, anyone who wants to raise a concern about modifying > > the Articles or Bylaws to more explicitly describe the procedures > > that we have consistently and democratically followed would be > > welcome to raise that issue. If Mr. Anderson disagrees with these > > procedures and wishes to suggest even better ones, we would > > welcome his input in person or via remote participation. > > > > I've provided this brief response today for sake of timeliness; > > additional legal and practical arguments undoubtedly apply here. > > > > /John > > > > John Curran > > Chairman, ARIN Board of Trustees > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-Discuss > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > > if you experience any issues. > > > > > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From mhalligan at bitpusher.com Fri Feb 1 23:19:13 2008 From: mhalligan at bitpusher.com (Michael T. Halligan) Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:19:13 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1E5C088E-221F-446B-8EB3-2DA9DEF7A9AB@bitpusher.com> Dean... Have you considered knitting? On Feb 1, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Dean Anderson wrote: > As to the matter of "participation", Mr. Curran is correct that the > key > issue is the level of participation in an electronic or mail-in vote. > However, there is no participation where email is merely sent, but > there > no response. That communication is one-way. Two-way communication is > required for "participation". Perhaps one can indeed respond "I don't > want to vote" or "none". But if there is no response, then there is no > participation. A dead member, who obviously can't respond, also > obviously didn't partcipate in the election after death. Mr. Curran > claims incredibly that the dead do participate because he sent them an > email. This is at odds with contract law, too. A response is > required. > > Perhaps, interestingly, the LPF was one of the first corporations to > have electronic voting in 1994. Don Knuth (Yes, the famous Knuth) > was a > particularly difficult case, because he didnt' want to receive any > email. But the lawyers said we had to send it. If we didnt' send it, > we > wouldn't have offered participation, and it has to be offered. Knuth > didn't have to vote but we had to send the email. Knuth agreed to > this, > with my deepest apologies. > > --Dean > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Dean Anderson wrote: > >> Mr. Curran ignores the last phrase in Section 13.1-852(A) which >> states >> >> "Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, >> directors >> are elected by a plurality of the votes cast by the members >> entitled to >> vote in the election at a meeting at which a quorum is present." >> >> A quorum must be present before cumulative votes can be counted. >> Section >> 13.1-849 specifies the quorum requirements when the quorum >> requirements >> are not specified in the bylaws. >> >> No quorum, no election. >> >> --Dean >> >> >> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: >> >>> Mr. Anderson posted a claim that the recent election of two members >>> of the ARIN Board of Trustees was legally insufficient. >>> >>> Mr. Anderson's post in part is repeated here: >>>> There was no quorum in (at least) last election of Board Members. >>>> At >>>> least 10% of membership is required by the Virginia Nonstock >>>> Corporation >>>> Act Section 13.1-849, in order to constitute a quorum. A >>>> membership >>>> list of 2945 members therefore requires 295 votes to be cast. >>>> Only 196 >>>> votes were actually cast, insufficient for a quorum. No quorum. No >>>> election. So, Paul Vixie and Bill Manning are not on the ARIN >>>> Board of >>>> Directors. A new election must be held that has a quorum. >>> >>> I am the Chairman of the ARIN Board of Trustees, and I am confident >>> that the procedures followed by ARIN are democratic and conducted in >>> accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Virginia law. >>> >>> Mr. Anderson's argument is based on reference to Section 13.1-849 of >>> the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act, which is entitled "quorum and >>> voting requirements for voting groups" and his reasoning on the >>> words >>> of paragraph (A). However, paragraph (D) of the same section >>> specifically carves out the election of directors. Section >>> 13.1-849(D) >>> directs you instead to Section 13.1-852(A) which states that: >>> "?Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, >>> directors >>> are elected by a plurality of the votes cast by the members >>> entitled to >>> vote in the election at a meeting at which a quorum is present." >>> No percentage of membership is stated in Section 13.1-852 as a >>> requirement for quorum. Mr. Anderson mistakenly reads the 10% >>> membership requirement from 13.1-849 into this gap. That is in >>> error. >>> In fact, given that the legislature understood how to impose such >>> a 10% >>> membership requirement, as is demonstrated in Section 13.1-849 as >>> cited >>> by Mr. Anderson, the absence of that 10% membership requirement in >>> these other portions of the statute is compelling. >>> >>> Further, the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act Section 13.1-846(B) >>> allows, "When directors or officers are to be elected by members, >>> the >>> Bylaws may provide that such elections may be conducted by mail." >>> Note that ARIN's Bylaws, Article VI, Section 4, paragraphs (g) and >>> (h) set forth the voting procedure for election of the Trustees. >>> Specifically, elections are conducted during a 7-day election period >>> electronically via the Internet, *not by an in-person meeting*, and >>> voting is open and available to all general members. Because of >>> this >>> electronic procedure, each member participates in the election >>> process, receiving four e-mail reminders to vote during the week >>> that >>> the election takes place. As every general member utilizes Internet >>> connectivity (which relates to the very purpose of this >>> organization) >>> in interactions with ARIN, it has been our consistent position >>> that all >>> general members "participate" in the election process regardless of >>> their physical location. (It is also worth noting that, as a >>> corporate >>> law matter, the concept of "quorum" does not relate to the number >>> of votes cast at a meeting but rather the level of participation. >>> Corporate practice simply does not rely upon votes cast as the >>> method for determining whether quorum requirements have >>> been satisfied.) >>> >>> Notwithstanding, in light of the topics raised, I believe it would >>> be helpful to put a placeholder to discuss voting procedures and >>> membership issues on the agenda of the ARIN Member Meeting >>> that will take place in Denver, Colorado on April 9, 2008. At that >>> meeting, anyone who wants to raise a concern about modifying >>> the Articles or Bylaws to more explicitly describe the procedures >>> that we have consistently and democratically followed would be >>> welcome to raise that issue. If Mr. Anderson disagrees with these >>> procedures and wishes to suggest even better ones, we would >>> welcome his input in person or via remote participation. >>> >>> I've provided this brief response today for sake of timeliness; >>> additional legal and practical arguments undoubtedly apply here. >>> >>> /John >>> >>> John Curran >>> Chairman, ARIN Board of Trustees >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ARIN-Discuss >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the >>> ARIN >>> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >>> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net >>> if you experience any issues. >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service > 617 344 9000 > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. Michael T. Halligan ------------------------ Chief Technology Officer BitPusher, LLC http://www.bitpusher.com/ From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Sat Feb 2 02:04:01 2008 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 00:04:01 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] members in good standing (WAS: No quorum in last election) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080202070401.GH12285@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 07:16:09PM -0500, jlewis at atlantic.net wrote: > Does ARIN consider non-paying members (especially members with multi-year > past due balances) as members? I would guess that most companies that "go > under" don't continue to pay their yearly dues. I've had this question posed in the past when discussing hijacked ASNs and IP space. At some point, the records in whois drop off, and it's pretty obvious that a given resource isn't recognized by ARIN as being allocated -- but what do we do in the limbo period when the business entity is kaput, but the resource is still in use? Of course, there's also the opposite problem... I recently transferred an ASN to our organization that we've picked up through acquisition. The dues hadn't been paid for two years, because the e-mail address wasn't valid, and no one had gotten the invoices. What would I have done if that ASN had been considered rouge and blackholed by various nets? Particularly if there had been difficulties in transferring the ASN, and becoming current on invoices? These corner cases get more interesting as more folks multi-home. From dean at av8.com Sat Feb 2 13:26:21 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 13:26:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <995b75480802020638q3afa91f7p285d6351d9c1aa4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Timothy Valis wrote: > On Feb 1, 2008 10:02 PM, Dean Anderson wrote: > > > As to the matter of "participation", Mr. Curran is correct that the key > > issue is the level of participation in an electronic or mail-in vote. > > However, there is no participation where email is merely sent, but there > > no response. That communication is one-way. Two-way communication is > > required for "participation". Perhaps one can indeed respond "I don't > > want to vote" or "none". But if there is no response, then there is no > > participation. > > So you are saying one must clearly state their abstention, not just > abstain from voting? Abstention is an affirmative response of non-vote by someone who is otherwise participating. In order to be counted as participating but not voting, one needs to signal participation somehow. John is saying that no response indicates participation. No response is non-participation. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From dean at av8.com Sun Feb 3 18:45:32 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 18:45:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: By the way, which attorney made these claims? --Dean On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > Mr. Anderson posted a claim that the recent election of two members > of the ARIN Board of Trustees was legally insufficient. > > Mr. Anderson's post in part is repeated here: > >There was no quorum in (at least) last election of Board Members. At > >least 10% of membership is required by the Virginia Nonstock Corporation > >Act Section 13.1-849, in order to constitute a quorum. A membership > >list of 2945 members therefore requires 295 votes to be cast. Only 196 > >votes were actually cast, insufficient for a quorum. No quorum. No > >election. So, Paul Vixie and Bill Manning are not on the ARIN Board of > >Directors. A new election must be held that has a quorum. > > I am the Chairman of the ARIN Board of Trustees, and I am confident > that the procedures followed by ARIN are democratic and conducted in > accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Virginia law. > > Mr. Anderson's argument is based on reference to Section 13.1-849 of > the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act, which is entitled "quorum and > voting requirements for voting groups" and his reasoning on the words > of paragraph (A). However, paragraph (D) of the same section > specifically carves out the election of directors. Section 13.1-849(D) > directs you instead to Section 13.1-852(A) which states that: > "?Unless otherwise provided in the articles of incorporation, directors > are elected by a plurality of the votes cast by the members entitled to > vote in the election at a meeting at which a quorum is present." > No percentage of membership is stated in Section 13.1-852 as a > requirement for quorum. Mr. Anderson mistakenly reads the 10% > membership requirement from 13.1-849 into this gap. That is in error. > In fact, given that the legislature understood how to impose such a 10% > membership requirement, as is demonstrated in Section 13.1-849 as cited > by Mr. Anderson, the absence of that 10% membership requirement in > these other portions of the statute is compelling. > > Further, the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act Section 13.1-846(B) > allows, "When directors or officers are to be elected by members, the > Bylaws may provide that such elections may be conducted by mail." > Note that ARIN's Bylaws, Article VI, Section 4, paragraphs (g) and > (h) set forth the voting procedure for election of the Trustees. > Specifically, elections are conducted during a 7-day election period > electronically via the Internet, *not by an in-person meeting*, and > voting is open and available to all general members. Because of this > electronic procedure, each member participates in the election > process, receiving four e-mail reminders to vote during the week that > the election takes place. As every general member utilizes Internet > connectivity (which relates to the very purpose of this organization) > in interactions with ARIN, it has been our consistent position that all > general members "participate" in the election process regardless of > their physical location. (It is also worth noting that, as a corporate > law matter, the concept of "quorum" does not relate to the number > of votes cast at a meeting but rather the level of participation. > Corporate practice simply does not rely upon votes cast as the > method for determining whether quorum requirements have > been satisfied.) > > Notwithstanding, in light of the topics raised, I believe it would > be helpful to put a placeholder to discuss voting procedures and > membership issues on the agenda of the ARIN Member Meeting > that will take place in Denver, Colorado on April 9, 2008. At that > meeting, anyone who wants to raise a concern about modifying > the Articles or Bylaws to more explicitly describe the procedures > that we have consistently and democratically followed would be > welcome to raise that issue. If Mr. Anderson disagrees with these > procedures and wishes to suggest even better ones, we would > welcome his input in person or via remote participation. > > I've provided this brief response today for sake of timeliness; > additional legal and practical arguments undoubtedly apply here. > > /John > > John Curran > Chairman, ARIN Board of Trustees > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jb at jbacher.com Mon Feb 4 10:03:03 2008 From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:03:03 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A72927.3070207@jbacher.com> Dean Anderson wrote: > Abstention is an affirmative response of non-vote by someone who is > otherwise participating. > > In order to be counted as participating but not voting, one needs to > signal participation somehow. John is saying that no response indicates > participation. No response is non-participation. I'd like to see the legal documentation that supports your statement. I can find no documentation, legal or otherwise, that indicates that abstention requires the voter to voice the abstention. From Mike at netwright.net Mon Feb 4 10:17:07 2008 From: Mike at netwright.net (Mike Lieberman) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:17:07 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <47A72927.3070207@jbacher.com> References: <47A72927.3070207@jbacher.com> Message-ID: <0b0201c86741$01a89620$04f9c260$@net> In this case, as in all contract law, ambiguity is to be interpreted as favoring the individual who is not the "scrivener" (the writer) of the document and is to be based on a reasonable man standard. As "participation" is more than an "invitation to participate", Dean, no matter whether you like him or not, is making a reasonable argument. The question becomes, of those who did not physically attend the meeting, how many submitted ballots and did that number satisfy the need for a quorum as stated in the by-laws? The argument that while the word quorum is stated, the definition is not stated, is fallacious. The word has meaning and so one is forced to look at other places with-in the document for meaning and if finding none, one looks at the enabling legislation. In this case, it would appear that 10% constitutes a quorum, and it would appear that since email ballots are permitted, they should be included in the count of a valid quorum. Given those assumptions, can the board state if a quorum was present? _________________________ Mike Lieberman, President Net Wright LLC Tel: 307-857-4898 Fax: 307-857-4872 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of J Bacher Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:03 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election Dean Anderson wrote: > Abstention is an affirmative response of non-vote by someone who is > otherwise participating. > > In order to be counted as participating but not voting, one needs to > signal participation somehow. John is saying that no response indicates > participation. No response is non-participation. I'd like to see the legal documentation that supports your statement. I can find no documentation, legal or otherwise, that indicates that abstention requires the voter to voice the abstention. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Feb 4 10:32:40 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 10:32:40 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <0b0201c86741$01a89620$04f9c260$@net> References: <47A72927.3070207@jbacher.com> <0b0201c86741$01a89620$04f9c260$@net> Message-ID: At 8:17 AM -0700 2/4/08, Mike Lieberman wrote: >The question becomes, of those who did not physically attend the meeting, how >many submitted ballots and did that number satisfy the need for a quorum as >stated in the by-laws? Mike - Per ARIN's Bylaws, there is no meeting for election of directors, as it is not required per Virginia law. The full membership participates in the election via electronic ballot over a seven day period, as stated in ARIN's bylaws. There is no quorum requirement stated in the Bylaws. /John From jb at jbacher.com Mon Feb 4 10:33:08 2008 From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher) Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:33:08 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <0b0201c86741$01a89620$04f9c260$@net> References: <47A72927.3070207@jbacher.com> <0b0201c86741$01a89620$04f9c260$@net> Message-ID: <47A73034.1080405@jbacher.com> Mike Lieberman wrote: > As "participation" is more than an "invitation to participate", Dean, no > matter whether you like him or not, is making a reasonable argument. The > question becomes, of those who did not physically attend the meeting, how > many submitted ballots and did that number satisfy the need for a quorum as > stated in the by-laws? Straw man. > The argument that while the word quorum is stated, the definition is not > stated, is fallacious. The word has meaning and so one is forced to look at > other places with-in the document for meaning and if finding none, one looks > at the enabling legislation. In this case, it would appear that 10% > constitutes a quorum, and it would appear that since email ballots are > permitted, they should be included in the count of a valid quorum. Given > those assumptions, can the board state if a quorum was present? Dean has chosen to re-define "abstain". I'd like to see it. From Mike at netwright.net Mon Feb 4 10:46:40 2008 From: Mike at netwright.net (Mike Lieberman) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:46:40 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: <47A72927.3070207@jbacher.com> <0b0201c86741$01a89620$04f9c260$@net> Message-ID: <0b0c01c86745$2237b660$66a72320$@net> John, Thanks for that input. Can you explain why the chair of the board stated otherwise in an email a few days ago? I have been following the thread, including the discussion of 990 members who might be in bankruptcy (meaningless) and discussions of sub-paragraphs where quorum is defined and where it is not. Your post states that all such previous statements - including from ARIN's on board are wrong. I have now gone to the by-laws and read them. My only question is - why has so much time been spend on this thread when the by-laws are indeed as you stated and so clearly not what was being argued (on both sides)? Mike Lieberman -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 8:33 AM To: Mike Lieberman Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election At 8:17 AM -0700 2/4/08, Mike Lieberman wrote: >The question becomes, of those who did not physically attend the meeting, how >many submitted ballots and did that number satisfy the need for a quorum as >stated in the by-laws? Mike - Per ARIN's Bylaws, there is no meeting for election of directors, as it is not required per Virginia law. The full membership participates in the election via electronic ballot over a seven day period, as stated in ARIN's bylaws. There is no quorum requirement stated in the Bylaws. /John From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Feb 4 11:22:27 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:22:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <0b0c01c86745$2237b660$66a72320$@net> References: <47A72927.3070207@jbacher.com> <0b0201c86741$01a89620$04f9c260$@net> <0b0c01c86745$2237b660$66a72320$@net> Message-ID: At 8:46 AM -0700 2/4/08, Mike Lieberman wrote: >John, > Thanks for that input. Can you explain why the chair of the board >stated otherwise in an email a few days ago? I have been following the >thread, including the discussion of 990 members who might be in bankruptcy >(meaningless) and discussions of sub-paragraphs where quorum is defined and >where it is not. Your post states that all such previous statements - >including from ARIN's on board are wrong. That is not the case; my post on Friday simply notes that there is not a "10% member requirement" for a quorum (as was asserted), and further than our election is by electronic ballot per ARIN's Bylaws. The Bylaws do not specify a quorum requirement; they provide for mandatory electronic notice of the membership of candidates (although we've actually been given 3 additional election reminders as well). > I have now gone to the by-laws and read them. My only question is - >why has so much time been spend on this thread when the by-laws are indeed >as you stated and so clearly not what was being argued (on both sides)? I don't know why myself; perhaps only now everyone's caught up with reading the Bylaws. /John From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Mon Feb 4 12:15:57 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:15:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] round and round we go (Re: No quorum in last election) In-Reply-To: <0b0c01c86745$2237b660$66a72320$@net> References: <47A72927.3070207@jbacher.com> <0b0201c86741$01a89620$04f9c260$@net> <0b0c01c86745$2237b660$66a72320$@net> Message-ID: ML> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 08:46:40 -0700 ML> From: Mike Lieberman ML> I have now gone to the by-laws and read them. My only question is - ML> why has so much time been spend on this thread when the by-laws are ML> indeed as you stated and so clearly not what was being argued (on ML> both sides)? It appears that some posters are fond of poisoning the well and of proof by assertion. I hope readers recognize and discard such fallacious "reasoning", but can understand how it may be tempting to feed trolls. When it is clear that two (or more) positions cannot achieve common ground, further discussion becomes fruitless. Either agree to disagree, or find a more appropriate venue. Perhaps ARIN lists need cloture procedures and posting-policy clarification. One could examine BCP 83 as an analogous starting point. A request to those posting _ad nauseum_: You clearly have the time to follow these threads and participate. Spend a little of that time organizing your thoughts concisely and succinctly. Show some respect for those whose "email playtime" is more limited. What have the past few months of flamewars accomplished? AFAICT, driving away list subscribers, potentially alienating members, and not much else. Is this the best use of ARIN funds? Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From tedm at ipinc.net Mon Feb 4 16:02:40 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:02:40 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson >Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:46 PM >To: John Curran >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election > > >By the way, which attorney made these claims? > He might well ask you the same ting. This is getting to the hugely amusing part. Dean's (allegedly) paying an attorney to verify his assertions. However, Dean's also paying dues to ARIN which pay for ARIN's attorney to respond to Dean's attorney. Thus, Dean is in effect paying 2 attorneys to argue with each other. Man, why was I so dumb as to go into networks? I could have been a lawyer and got guarenteed income for life. Ted From dean at av8.com Mon Feb 4 16:40:48 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 16:40:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > At 8:17 AM -0700 2/4/08, Mike Lieberman wrote: > >The question becomes, of those who did not physically attend the meeting, how > >many submitted ballots and did that number satisfy the need for a quorum as > >stated in the by-laws? > > Mike - > > Per ARIN's Bylaws, there is no meeting for election of directors, as it > is not required per Virginia law. John's claim is absolutely false. The Virginia Law is absolutely clear about that. When not specified in the bylaws, a quorum of 10% is required. The question of fact is whether the ARIN bylaws specify a quorum. The ARIN bylaws do not specify a quorum. So therefore, the default quorum specified in Virginia law applies. The bylaws merely allow for electronic and mail-in voting, per the requirements of the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act Section 13.1-846(B): B. When directors or officers are to be elected by members, the bylaws may provide that such elections may be conducted by mail. If authorized by the board of directors, any requirement that any vote of the members be made by written ballot may be satisfied by a ballot submitted by electronic transmission, provided that any such electronic transmission shall either set forth or be submitted with information from which it can be determined that the electronic transmission was authorized by the member or the member?s proxy. There is nothing inconsistent between Section 13.1-846(B) and Sections 13.1-849. > The full membership participates in the election via electronic ballot > over a seven day period, as stated in ARIN's bylaws. This is also not the case. Black's Law dictionary gives a definition of participation: "To prove "participation" in a criminal enterprise, for purpose of aiding and abetting, there must be evidence to establish that defendant engaged in some affirmative conduct, that is, that defendant committed an overt act designed to aid in success of the venture; prove of mere negative acquiescence will not suffice" The entire membership _can_ certainly participate by electronic ballot. But it is not the case that they did participate. Participation by electronic ballot requires a ballot to be received by ARIN. Where are these ballots indicating "abstain"? > There is no quorum requirement stated in the Bylaws. Indeed. And so therefore, Virginia Law VNCA Section 13.1-849 applies. To exempt a corporation from Section 13.1-849, one must explicitly state the quorum requirement. If no quorum is to be required for a corporation, that fact must be stated explicitly because it contradicts the default set by Virginia law in section 13.1-849. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From mksmith at adhost.com Mon Feb 4 17:01:29 2008 From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael Smith) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:01:29 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <60233FD0-3268-4457-9C7E-8A3D01171AC5@adhost.com> Dean: On Feb 4, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Dean Anderson wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > >> At 8:17 AM -0700 2/4/08, Mike Lieberman wrote: >>> The question becomes, of those who did not physically attend the >>> meeting, how >>> many submitted ballots and did that number satisfy the need for a >>> quorum as >>> stated in the by-laws? >> >> Mike - >> >> Per ARIN's Bylaws, there is no meeting for election of directors, >> as it >> is not required per Virginia law. > > John's claim is absolutely false. The Virginia Law is absolutely clear > about that. When not specified in the bylaws, a quorum of 10% is > required. > > The question of fact is whether the ARIN bylaws specify a quorum. The > ARIN bylaws do not specify a quorum. So therefore, the default quorum > specified in Virginia law applies. > > The bylaws merely allow for electronic and mail-in voting, per the > requirements of the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act Section > 13.1-846(B): > > B. When directors or officers are to be elected by members, the > bylaws > may provide that such elections may be conducted by mail. If > authorized by the board of directors, any requirement that any vote > of > the members be made by written ballot may be satisfied by a ballot > submitted by electronic transmission, provided that any such > electronic transmission shall either set forth or be submitted with > information from which it can be determined that the electronic > transmission was authorized by the member or the member?s proxy. > > There is nothing inconsistent between Section 13.1-846(B) and Sections > 13.1-849. > >> The full membership participates in the election via electronic >> ballot >> over a seven day period, as stated in ARIN's bylaws. > > This is also not the case. Black's Law dictionary gives a definition > of > participation: > > "To prove "participation" in a criminal enterprise, for purpose of > aiding and abetting, there must be evidence to establish that > defendant engaged in some affirmative conduct, that is, that > defendant > committed an overt act designed to aid in success of the venture; > prove of mere negative acquiescence will not suffice" I guess you then need to prove that ARIN is a criminal enterprise so you can then apply the definition of "participation" above. As you have pointed out in the past, I am not a lawyer. You are not a lawyer either and quoting Black's Law dictionary [sic] will not make you any more of a lawyer in or to this forum. John acknowledged your claims on this list and said he would address your questions to ARIN's Legal Counsel. I would assume some sort of statement from Counsel will be forthcoming, at which point anyone, you included, may elect to take legal issue with that statement. Until then, we might as well argue about the number of angels on the head of a pin because that argument carries about as much weight as all of us arguing about legal statutes. By the way, you have been forgetting your little blurb at the beginning of your posts of late. Regards, Michael Smith Adhost Internet, LLC From dean at av8.com Mon Feb 4 17:06:32 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:06:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <0b0c01c86745$2237b660$66a72320$@net> Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Mike Lieberman wrote: > John, > Thanks for that input. Can you explain why the chair of the board > stated otherwise in an email a few days ago? John said he was going to have an ARIN lawyer review this, but it seems no lawyer has been identified. John: Please identify the lawyer making these claims. I think this can be cleared up by a conference call with my attorney and your attorney. John is arguing two different things: 1) That no quorum is required. 2) That the entire membership participates in every election. That is, 100% of the members, even those recently deceased members, are present for the purpose of quorum. It might seem that these positions are contradictory. I'm treating them as separate, independent assertions. BTW, the analogy of the dead participating is a strong analogy. The law of the US (and English Law before) is rich with cases of election fraud, and chief among the frauds are schemes for participation by deceased. [someone said they could find no law on the subject. There is quite a lot of law on the subject.] So far, no court over (several hundred years) has ever held that a dead person can participate in an election. So when your position includes participation by a dead person, you've probably found a new type of election fraud, rather than a new way to conduct business. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Feb 4 17:44:42 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 17:44:42 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >At 6:45 PM -0500 2/3/08, Dean Anderson wrote: >By the way, which attorney made these claims? Dean - For clarity, I reviewed your claims with ARIN's counsel, and prepared the response accordingly. /John From dean at av8.com Mon Feb 4 18:44:24 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:44:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: [ARIN agrees that discussion to recall Board members, to conduct investigations of ARIN expenditures, and to stop certain ARIN expenditures does not violate the ARIN AUP.] On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > >At 6:45 PM -0500 2/3/08, Dean Anderson wrote: > >By the way, which attorney made these claims? > > Dean - > > For clarity, I reviewed your claims with ARIN's counsel, > and prepared the response accordingly. Name, please. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Feb 4 19:01:34 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:01:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 6:44 PM -0500 2/4/08, Dean Anderson wrote: >[ARIN agrees that discussion to recall Board members, to conduct >investigations of ARIN expenditures, and to stop certain ARIN >expenditures does not violate the ARIN AUP.] > > >On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > >> >At 6:45 PM -0500 2/3/08, Dean Anderson wrote: >> >By the way, which attorney made these claims? >> >> Dean - >> >> For clarity, I reviewed your claims with ARIN's counsel, >> and prepared the response accordingly. > >Name, please. Dean - It hasn't changed any - ARIN is represented by the firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP. /John From dean at av8.com Mon Feb 4 19:47:11 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:47:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > At 6:44 PM -0500 2/4/08, Dean Anderson wrote: > >[ARIN agrees that discussion to recall Board members, to conduct > >investigations of ARIN expenditures, and to stop certain ARIN > >expenditures does not violate the ARIN AUP.] > > > > > >On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > > > >> >At 6:45 PM -0500 2/3/08, Dean Anderson wrote: > >> >By the way, which attorney made these claims? > >> > >> Dean - > >> > >> For clarity, I reviewed your claims with ARIN's counsel, > >> and prepared the response accordingly. > > > >Name, please. > > Dean - > > It hasn't changed any - ARIN is represented by the > firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP. The firm hasn't changed, perhaps. However, ARIN has been represented by several different attorneys at McDermott Will & Emery LLP. The _name_ of your attorney is not confidential, nor can you refuse to disclose that attorney who gave you the advice when you assert "advice of attorney" as a defense of your actions. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Feb 4 19:59:40 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:59:40 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:47 PM -0500 2/4/08, Dean Anderson wrote: > > > It hasn't changed any - ARIN is represented by the >> firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP. > >The firm hasn't changed, perhaps. However, ARIN has been represented by >several different attorneys at McDermott Will & Emery LLP. That's quite true, as they represent us. Feel free to contact them for details or Mr. Steve Ryan of said firm if you need a single name. /John From dean at av8.com Mon Feb 4 20:04:57 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:04:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <03ff01c8677c$a08f2340$1da0a8c0@bobafett> Message-ID: Every once in a while, I get a message like this: > Hi Dean, > > I have been following things for some time with regards to your > details with respect to the ARIN board and alleged wrong doings. I > feel I am at a bit of a disadvantage in that I am not 1. a lawyer and > 2. Canadian. > > Do you have time to summarize the importance of your claims and, > basically, why I should care? I don't want to encourage the small noisy group who advocate their views by threatening and trying to suppress or silence contrary views, but I think that basically, its a fair question that should be answered from a high level perspective. I think its important to educate people about these subjects. Honest corporate governance is important; and that's why members should [and a great many do!] care. I have noticed that nearly all the members of ARIN are corporations. Agents of the corporation [are supposed to] act in the interest of their company, not their personal interest. If honest corporate governance of ARIN isn't your personal interest or part of your job, then perhaps your company has someone else who should be working on ARIN governance for the benefit of the member corporation. If you aren't personally interested, probably your company is interested in good corporate governance. So, Assuming the reader is interested in corporate governance, I also suggest that one read "The Seven Signs of Ethical Collapse" by Marianne Jennings, J.D. The inside cover to the book really sums up why one should care: "Do you want to make sure you * Don't invest your money in the next Enron? * Don't go to work for the next WorldCom right before the crash? * Identify and solve problems in your organization before they send it crashing to the ground?" I'll add another quote from the Author's Note of the same book: "When Daniel Petrocelli, Mr. Skilling's lawyer for the trial, first met with Mr. Skilling to discuss serving as his defense lawyer, Mr. Petrocelli owned to him that he was not criminal lawyer. Mr. Skilling's response was, "That's okay. I'm not a criminal". Wrong again, this time wrong for a lifetime. [...] "But do we fancy ourselves different from these companies and the now-convicts who led them, or do we work to be sure we don't fall into the same traps? We need some new ideas and a different road." I want to avoid those old traps, offer new ideas, and find a different road. Let me put things in more detailed terms with respect to ARIN and the present issues under investigation. First, one couldn't have honest corporate governance without the ability for members to investigate the Directors or the management. As a general statement, a dishonest "anyone", including a Board Member, Manager, or whomever, can be expected to resist investigation, so investigation cannot depend on the approval of the Board of Directors. It has also been eloquently pointed out that the object of an investigation is to uncover facts; It was pointed out that it is a waste of the democratic process to require the membership to vote without facts. So an investigation cannot require the prior support of the membership; Its just silly to argue that one must get support of the membership to do an investigation. An investigation is the MEANS to get the facts necessary to support some action by the membership. Second, I note many thoughtful comments have supported the investigations. Members want to know the answers to the reasonable questions of how ARIN is spending money. Members have a legal right to know what ARIN is doing and how ARIN is spending its money. Board Members of a corporation are "fully answerable" to the membership. The issues of ARIN's activities and the board members' conflicts of interests are legitimate business questions that affect corporate governance. Indeed, many members seem to be unaware of these conflicts of interest and unaware of the full facts affecting the character and ethics of Board Members. As I mentioned, the Board Members are "fully answerable" to the members; this is the law. And I think many members want answers to these questions. By contrast, the persons who want to stop the investigation also advocate disregarding any current or past wrongdoing, disregarding facts reflecting negatively on Board Members' character, disregarding the ARIN bylaws, and disregarding bad faith, false statements, and conflict of interest of Board Members. They advocate _against_ ARIN reporting the facts of, for example, what ARIN has spent on NANOG. They advocate _against_ having quorum requirements for the election of Board Members. They advocate _against_ discussion of corporate governance. Their position is contrary to principles of good corporate governance. These positions are not inconsequential to good corporate government. Reduced participation in elections over a period of years has enabled one small group (NANOG) to take control of ARIN, and to begin transfering funds from ARIN to NANOG. This transfer is not insignificant, and adds to more than $500,000.00 so far. The current board wants to continue siphoning off money from ARIN to NANOG at a rate of at least $50,000 per year. It appears the NANOG-affiliated Directors have may have directed ARIN payment for ARIN A/C Members to attend NANOG, furnishing benefits for some members at the expense of other members. These transactions are inurements which are explicitly prohibited by the bylaws, the IRS regulations for 501(c)6 corporations, and the articles of incorporation which state there will be no violation of 501(c)6. Inurements are "jeapordizing transaction" which jeapordize the tax-exempt status of ARIN, as well as being contrary to the bylaws. Third, I think many members wonder WHY ARIN is paying for programmers, DBA's, executive assistants and other non-network-operations staff (whose job has nothing to do with the craft of Network Operations), to attend NANOG seminars teaching the craft of Network Operations. I think they wonder HOW MUCH is being spent. Questions of "How much has been spent on NANOG?", and "for what benefit to ARIN?", are legitimate questions for 'ARIN to spend time and resources" answering. To date, ARIN has given only vague answers or none at all. Bad character has consequences. Bad choices have consequences. The bad consequences affect Canadians, too. That is why these issues, and good corporate governance are important. Indeed, they are probably the most important things that members decide. IRS pages on 501(c)6 Life Cycle http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=169366,00.html IRS page on 501(c)6 Inurement http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=169403,00.html "The statutory inurement proscription, however, precludes furnishing benefits for some members at special rates, at the expense of other members." -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From dean at av8.com Mon Feb 4 21:54:18 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 21:54:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >By the way, which attorney made these claims? > > > > He might well ask you the same ting. First, I when do my own research, I say so and cite my sources. When I post my attorney's opinion, I say so. Mr. Curran said his (ARIN's) attorney issued an opinion; I have a right to that attorney's name. Denying that information is mere intransigence which unnecessarilly increases my expenses--I have to pay my attorney to get the name before we can ask questions of that attorney about his opinion. Second, I think a conference with that attorney would wrap this up in about 5 minutes. Third, as I pointed out in http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2008-January/000728.html Attorneys have more obligations in their opinions. > This is getting to the hugely amusing part. Dean's (allegedly) > paying an attorney to verify his assertions. However, Dean's also > paying dues to ARIN which pay for ARIN's attorney to respond to > Dean's attorney. Thus, Dean is in effect paying 2 attorneys > to argue with each other. Well, actually, sometimes they have paid my legal fees. I was paid ~$14,000 once when an admin made misrepresentations to me and increased my legal expenses unnecessarilly. When someone acts unreasonably and causes you to expend money unnecessarilly, that money is recoverable. > Man, why was I so dumb as to go into networks? I could have > been a lawyer and got guarenteed income for life. I agree. Attorneys are definitely the smart ones. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From chris.gettings at videonext.com Mon Feb 4 22:09:51 2008 From: chris.gettings at videonext.com (Chris Gettings) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:09:51 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <358E1D69-B779-4DC8-A780-860B671CCA58@videonext.com> The cherry on top comes with lawyers and venture capitalists. It is usual and customary that the company receiving a VC investment pays for both its own lawyers, and the legal fees of the VC investor. So you pay both sides, and neither firm has any incentive to keep the cost down. You are directly paying the two lawyers to argue with each other, which might be hugely amusing if it was not so hugely expensive, slow and painful. Chris Sent from my iPhone On Feb 4, 2008, at 9:54 PM, "Dean Anderson" wrote: > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > >By the way, which attorney made these claims? > > > > > > > He might well ask you the same ting. > > First, I when do my own research, I say so and cite my sources. > When I > post my attorney's opinion, I say so. Mr. Curran said his (ARIN's) > attorney issued an opinion; I have a right to that attorney's name. > Denying that information is mere intransigence which unnecessarilly > increases my expenses--I have to pay my attorney to get the name > before > we can ask questions of that attorney about his opinion. > > Second, I think a conference with that attorney would wrap this up in > about 5 minutes. > > Third, as I pointed out in > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2008-January/000728.html > Attorneys have more obligations in their opinions. > > > This is getting to the hugely amusing part. Dean's (allegedly) > > paying an attorney to verify his assertions. However, Dean's also > > paying dues to ARIN which pay for ARIN's attorney to respond to > > Dean's attorney. Thus, Dean is in effect paying 2 attorneys > > to argue with each other. > > Well, actually, sometimes they have paid my legal fees. I was paid > ~$14,000 once when an admin made misrepresentations to me and > increased > my legal expenses unnecessarilly. When someone acts unreasonably and > causes you to expend money unnecessarilly, that money is recoverable. > > > Man, why was I so dumb as to go into networks? I could have > > been a lawyer and got guarenteed income for life. > > I agree. Attorneys are definitely the smart ones. > > --Dean > > > > -- > Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? > www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service > 617 344 9000 > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 01:13:23 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 01:13:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Dean Anderson wrote: > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > > > At 8:17 AM -0700 2/4/08, Mike Lieberman wrote: > > >The question becomes, of those who did not physically attend the meeting, how > > >many submitted ballots and did that number satisfy the need for a quorum as > > >stated in the by-laws? > > > > Mike - > > > > Per ARIN's Bylaws, there is no meeting for election of directors, as it > > is not required per Virginia law. > > John's claim is absolutely false. Oops. Forgot to include the evidence of meeting. ARIN Bylaw VI.i Election Results states: "The President and one member of the Board of Trustees shall, in cooperation with ARIN's General Counsel, tally the votes and certify that the election was held following the approved voting procedures." This is a meeting of specific ARIN staff to count the ballots. Members are represented by their ballots. There is no mention of quorum requirements and no specific exemption from quorum requirements in the bylaws, as is necessary under Virginia Law to be exempt from quorum requirements. Blacks Law Dictionary also gives a definition of meeting: "A coming together of persons; an assembly. Particularly, in law, an assembling of a number of persons for the purpose of discussing and acting upon some matter or matters in which they have a common interest; [...]" Then as follows regarding quorum requirements. > The Virginia Law is absolutely clear about that. When not specified > in the bylaws, a quorum of 10% is required. > > The question of fact is whether the ARIN bylaws specify a quorum. The > ARIN bylaws do not specify a quorum. So therefore, the default quorum > specified in Virginia law applies. > > The bylaws merely allow for electronic and mail-in voting, per the > requirements of the Virginia Nonstock Corporation Act Section > 13.1-846(B): > > B. When directors or officers are to be elected by members, the bylaws > may provide that such elections may be conducted by mail. If > authorized by the board of directors, any requirement that any vote of > the members be made by written ballot may be satisfied by a ballot > submitted by electronic transmission, provided that any such > electronic transmission shall either set forth or be submitted with > information from which it can be determined that the electronic > transmission was authorized by the member or the member?s proxy. > > There is nothing inconsistent between Section 13.1-846(B) and Sections > 13.1-849. > > > The full membership participates in the election via electronic ballot > > over a seven day period, as stated in ARIN's bylaws. > > This is also not the case. Black's Law dictionary gives a definition of > participation: > > "To prove "participation" in a criminal enterprise, for purpose of > aiding and abetting, there must be evidence to establish that > defendant engaged in some affirmative conduct, that is, that defendant > committed an overt act designed to aid in success of the venture; > prove of mere negative acquiescence will not suffice" > > The entire membership _can_ certainly participate by electronic ballot. > But it is not the case that they did participate. Participation by > electronic ballot requires a ballot to be received by ARIN. Where are > these ballots indicating "abstain"? > > > > There is no quorum requirement stated in the Bylaws. > > Indeed. And so therefore, Virginia Law VNCA Section 13.1-849 applies. To > exempt a corporation from Section 13.1-849, one must explicitly state > the quorum requirement. If no quorum is to be required for a > corporation, that fact must be stated explicitly because it contradicts > the default set by Virginia law in section 13.1-849. > > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Feb 5 05:14:37 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:14:37 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > The _name_ of your attorney is not confidential, nor can you > refuse to disclose that attorney who gave you the advice when > you assert "advice of attorney" as a defense of your actions. What a load of hot air! When will somebody report Dean to his state bar association for practicing law without a licence? In the statement above he is clearly arguing a legal position, and although we are not qualified judges, neither is he a qualified lawyer. For that matter, the ARIN-discuss mailing list is not a recognised court. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Feb 5 05:27:43 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:27:43 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <03ff01c8677c$a08f2340$1da0a8c0@bobafett> Message-ID: > I don't want to encourage the small noisy group who advocate > their views by threatening and trying to suppress or silence > contrary views, So far, the leading member of that group is YOU! Most of us believe that ARIN is basically in good order, not being run by a secret NANOG cabal, and in no need of urgent action. You hold a contrary view to most of us and have been raising a lot of ruckus bordering on threats, trying to suppress our view and make your view dominate the airtime. > Second, I note many thoughtful comments have supported the > investigations. Members want to know the answers to the > reasonable questions of how ARIN is spending money. I too support an investigation. I too want to know how ARIN is spending its money. But I have seen nothing which suggests that this investigation and report should not be done using ARIN's business-as-usual process, i.e. the staff and directors will sort out what to do, and provide a report to us at the next members meeting. No need for extraordinary actions. And most especially, no need for temper tantrums and demanding answers be given, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW! Apologies to Fat Boy Slim. > By contrast, the persons who want to stop the investigation Asking you to please shut up on the list is not the same thing as asking to stop the investigation. Rational people are beginning to wonder why the latest demand for John Curran to disclose the name of an ARIN lawyer, could not have taken place entirely in private email messages. Or a simple phone call. > also advocate disregarding any current or past wrongdoing, > disregarding facts reflecting negatively on Board Members' > character, disregarding the ARIN bylaws, and disregarding bad > faith, false statements, and conflict of interest of Board > Members. They advocate _against_ ARIN reporting the facts > of, for example, what ARIN has spent on NANOG. They advocate > _against_ having quorum requirements for the election of > Board Members. > They advocate _against_ discussion of corporate governance. > Their position is contrary to principles of good corporate governance. Lies, all lies. This tactic didn't do anything to help Marxist-Leninists to dominate the world and it won't do anything to help you win supporters. Give it a rest, please. If you know of any ARIN wrongdoing, take it to the courts. Quit trying to make us all into legal experts because we don't want to be lawyers. --Michael Dillon From zolla at neonet.org Tue Feb 5 09:18:32 2008 From: zolla at neonet.org (Christopher Zolla) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:18:32 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <03ff01c8677c$a08f2340$1da0a8c0@bobafett> Message-ID: <1A707052464EEF48AC199EBFB2B1028F522CB4@neonet-exch1.neonetda.org> I have been reading this thread for some time now, and while I have only been an ARIN member for a few years, this one of the few threads that didn't involve 40 emails of ARIN members trying to figure out how to get off the distribution list so it has grabbed my attention. Let me begin by saying I really have no knowledge of what the motivation is behind these allegations, but I would like to believe at this point it is based on concern for the organization. From what I have been reading, Dean has raised some valid questions regarding voting and the spending of ARIN dollars. I have no idea of the validity of the statements, but I will continue to follow the progress as I am interested in the outcome. That being said, from a third party point of view, Dean has maintained a positive and professional response to every email I have read (I haven't read them all - but close) questioning his motives and his approach to this situation. In my mind, emails like this don't discredit anything he is asking. In fact, I think it has the opposite effect in that the more that get sent, the more I really want an official answer to these allegations from ARIN. It would seem to me if Dean was spaming us all with a "bunch of lies", this issue would already have been addressed with the truth and the discussion would be over. I guess the question I have is, considering the time span this has taken place in, why hasn't there been an official response to any of these allegations? The lack of response makes it _seem_ like there is something to hide. Are the allegations not being taken seriously? If member awareness is what it will take to get an answer, I think that is starting to happen. Or at least it is from my perspective. In summary, for all I know Dean _may_ be misguided and have his own agenda, but if the things he is saying are false, then present an official response and discredit him. This email is not directed at anyone in particular. I wanted to share my fairly disconnected view on the situation and what my perception was as a member who has not been actively involved in the workings of ARIN. Christopher Zolla -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of michael.dillon at bt.com Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 5:28 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance > I don't want to encourage the small noisy group who advocate > their views by threatening and trying to suppress or silence > contrary views, So far, the leading member of that group is YOU! Most of us believe that ARIN is basically in good order, not being run by a secret NANOG cabal, and in no need of urgent action. You hold a contrary view to most of us and have been raising a lot of ruckus bordering on threats, trying to suppress our view and make your view dominate the airtime. > Second, I note many thoughtful comments have supported the > investigations. Members want to know the answers to the > reasonable questions of how ARIN is spending money. I too support an investigation. I too want to know how ARIN is spending its money. But I have seen nothing which suggests that this investigation and report should not be done using ARIN's business-as-usual process, i.e. the staff and directors will sort out what to do, and provide a report to us at the next members meeting. No need for extraordinary actions. And most especially, no need for temper tantrums and demanding answers be given, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW! Apologies to Fat Boy Slim. > By contrast, the persons who want to stop the investigation Asking you to please shut up on the list is not the same thing as asking to stop the investigation. Rational people are beginning to wonder why the latest demand for John Curran to disclose the name of an ARIN lawyer, could not have taken place entirely in private email messages. Or a simple phone call. > also advocate disregarding any current or past wrongdoing, > disregarding facts reflecting negatively on Board Members' > character, disregarding the ARIN bylaws, and disregarding bad > faith, false statements, and conflict of interest of Board > Members. They advocate _against_ ARIN reporting the facts > of, for example, what ARIN has spent on NANOG. They advocate > _against_ having quorum requirements for the election of > Board Members. > They advocate _against_ discussion of corporate governance. > Their position is contrary to principles of good corporate governance. Lies, all lies. This tactic didn't do anything to help Marxist-Leninists to dominate the world and it won't do anything to help you win supporters. Give it a rest, please. If you know of any ARIN wrongdoing, take it to the courts. Quit trying to make us all into legal experts because we don't want to be lawyers. --Michael Dillon _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Tue Feb 5 09:27:20 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:27:20 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: DA> Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:04:57 -0500 (EST) DA> From: Dean Anderson DA> I don't want to encourage the small noisy group who advocate their DA> views by threatening and trying to suppress or silence contrary DA> views Tu quoque. DA> Honest corporate governance is important; and that's why members DA> should [and a great many do!] care. Spot-on. Many do care. But let's dispense of this straw man: Members can care _without_ wanting Dean Anderson, Carl Icahn, or any other personality becoming a self-appointed knight in shining armor for "the rest of us". All this talk about "members" starts to sound like a politician blathering about "citizens" or "consumers". Argumentum ad numerum. Although you cite good principles, I _do not_ agree with neither your conclusions nor your tactics. I do not wish for you to be my voice in ARIN. It appears fact-finding is under way. Until discovery is completed, any further conjecture is just that: conjecture. Any sort of presentation as fact, or in a light that a reasonable person might believe it to be fact, would just be naughty. My position, for the record: * I'd like to know how ARIN money is spent. Perhaps the membership can discuss what, if any, changes should be made to annual reporting. Having more detail seems a reasonable request. * I am glad that ARIN sends non-op staff to NANOG meetings. I _want_ ARIN staff to understand that which they are tasked to govern. We might need to decide what amounts/methods are appropriate, but I do not agree with "zero". Having all staff understand their company's industry and purpose is a good thing. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From todd-arin at renesys.com Tue Feb 5 09:43:53 2008 From: todd-arin at renesys.com (Todd Underwood) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:43:53 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance Message-ID: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> christopher, On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 09:18:32AM -0500, Christopher Zolla wrote: > > Let me begin by saying I really have no knowledge of what the motivation > is behind these allegations, some of the history matters here, i think. when the same person levels unprovable and unproven accusations over years (more than a decade now?), one stops listening or responding. > it is based on concern for the organization. From what I have been > reading, Dean has raised some valid questions regarding voting and the > spending of ARIN dollars. the voting issue was resolved with a professional response from john curran proxying an opinion by arin counsel (one of the most respected law firms in washington, probably the country). if someone disagrees with that opinion, they can either file a claim or raise a legal issue directly to the arin board of directors. i, personally, am convinced that dean and his random walk through blacks law dictionary are wrong and that the actual lawyers for arin are right. you're free to draw your own conclusions and consult your own lawyer about virginia corporate governance. i, personally, have a lot more interest in discussing the roll-out of the AAA records in the root, policies around ipv6 allocation and routing and other issues of actual network policy. > That being said, from a third party point of view, Dean has maintained a > positive and professional response to every email I have read (I haven't > read them all - but close) questioning his motives and his approach to > this situation. In my mind, emails like this don't discredit anything > he is asking. In fact, I think it has the opposite effect in that the > more that get sent, the more I really want an official answer to these > allegations from ARIN. which allegations? the allegations that they are operating a criminal enterprise? seriously? the accusation that paul vixie is a master international criminal who is actually a spammer? christopher: dean has been bandying about these accusations for years. tons and tons of smoke but there's *never* any fire. spend some time researching it. i don't know paul vixie personally, but i know enough about him and know enough about what he's done for the internet (policy and infrastructure-wise) to know that it is *laughable* to accuse him (or rodney joffe, for that matter) of being spammers. anyone who would make such an allegation and then *never* back it up with any data loses all credibility. > It would seem to me if Dean was spaming us all > with a "bunch of lies", this issue would already have been addressed > with the truth and the discussion would be over. I guess the question I it has been. dozens and dozens of times of the years. dean is playing the neo-con playbook: just repeat the same lies and wait until peopel get tired of correcting them. > Are the allegations not being taken seriously? i sincerely hope not. > In summary, for all I know Dean _may_ be misguided and have his own > agenda, but if the things he is saying are false, then present an > official response and discredit him. This email is not directed at > anyone in particular. I wanted to share my fairly disconnected view on > the situation and what my perception was as a member who has not been > actively involved in the workings of ARIN. i can appreciate that. one of the things that is going on here is that so many of us have dean on our personal killfiles and have vowed to not feed the trolls that he is given free reign to propagate nonsense on the list without correction. in general, that's a good policy. in this case i believe that some people, such as yourself, may be left with the mistaken believe that there is something credible (or nefarious) here, when there is, instead, just a reasonable decision to mostly ignore someone who has very little credibility. i think curran has done a fabulous job carefully teasing out any specific allegations that can be addressed and addressing them. the quorum/voting issue is a great example. dean raise a point, curran got a legal opinion, the case is now closed. dean now wants the name of the individual lawyer who offered that opinion. why? who knows? who cares. that issue is settled. anyone who disagrees should use the policy or board process to change the decision or use the legal process to file a claim if they feel harmed in some way by it. there are *lots* of examples of curran directly addressing concrete claims over the past year or so. vixie even responded once to the accusations that somehow it was well-known that he was a spammer (rather than being well-known as one of the most vehement anti-spammers out there). those of us who are active in nanog (which has a conference 3x a year that draws 400-500 of the brightest network engineers on this content and which i highly recommend: www.nanog.org; take a look at the agenda for the upcoming meeting in san jose later this month) know that arin's participation is valuable to both organizations. arin works on policy, nanog works on operations and engineering. on most other continents, these functions are rolled into the same organization (RIPE, LACNIC, e.g.), but in north america, for historical reasons, they are separate. it is incredibly useful for nanog attendees to be exposed to the policy process at the join arin/nanog meetings. it is incredibly useful to arin to be exposed to the engineering problems created by their policies. it is also useful to arin that nanog delivers engineers to attend arin meetings (some of whom might not attend were it not for the joint meeting). in short, nanog/arin working together is good. anyone who thinks that nanog is a small club isn't paying attention. (disclaimer: i've been going to nanog for a few years and currently chair the program committee there, so i'm naturally interested in the organization and proud of what we've done with it). here's what i predict will happen: dean doesn't know me or know anything about me but he'll now try to drag me through the mud. he'll probably claim that i'm a spammer, murderer, drug dealer international criminal mastermind who is supporting the devious plan to anycast annoyance into his life. who knows? maybe he'll even sue me. he tries to intimidate anyone who disagrees with him. i'll try to refrain from commenting further on this thread, but i thought it would be useful for everyone to know just how many clueful people are ignoring these issues simply because of the (lack of) credibility of their source. -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd at renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog ----- End forwarded message ----- -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd at renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Tue Feb 5 09:49:23 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:49:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] proposal: cloture procedures Message-ID: [ apologies if this is better suited to PPML ] I move that ARIN lists would benefit from cloture procedures. Proposal: ===== 1. Any member may request a thread-kill vote: a. via a user-authenticated section on ARIN's website; b. once within a 30-day moving window; c. for a thread discussed on any list to which s/he is subscribed, without regard to posting priviliges or participation level. 2. Upon request per (1): a. a thread-kill announcement shall be sent to the list; b. the "time of announcement" shall be the time that ARIN MXes finished conversation with the last-contacted subscriber MX, without regard to 2xx/4xx/5xx/other status. 3. Votes must be cast within 48 hours of (2). 4. A two-thirds majority of the votes cast via (3) shall be required to kill a thread. 5. In the event that two-thirds of list subscribers vote in favor of killing a thread before deadline (3), the thread shall be killed immediately. ===== Note that the required majority should be high: Individuals not interested in a discussion or poster can use client-side filtering rules on a spot basis. Cloture should be reserved for clear-cut cases where it would benefit more than a simple majority. I feel that this would benefit all subscribers. Those wishing to stop a discussion would have a means to do so -- iff backed by sufficient like minds. Those wishing to continue a discussion would have a manifest to do so were sufficient votes not cast. Then we can quit arguing about whether we should quit arguing. :-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Tue Feb 5 09:53:14 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:53:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: EBD> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:27:20 +0000 (GMT) EBD> From: Edward B. DREGER EBD> All this talk about "members" starts to sound like a politician EBD> blathering about "citizens" or "consumers". Argumentum ad numerum. EBD> Although you cite good principles, I _do not_ agree with neither your EBD> conclusions nor your tactics. I do not wish for you to be my voice in EBD> ARIN. s/_do not_ agree with neither/_do not_ agree with either/ Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From mstotyn at enmax.com Tue Feb 5 10:35:51 2008 From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:35:51 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C7@MAIL04.enmax.com> >> The _name_ of your attorney is not confidential, nor can you refuse to >> disclose that attorney who gave you the advice when you assert "advice >> of attorney" as a defense of your actions. > What a load of hot air! > When will somebody report Dean to his state bar association for practicing law without a licence? > In the statement above he is clearly arguing a legal position, and although we are not qualified judges, neither is he > a qualified lawyer. > For that matter, the ARIN-discuss mailing list is not a recognised court. > --Michael Dillon I can see where the hot air is coming from. It isn't Dean. The lawyers name needn't be confidential. Therefore, it is ARIN principals that are causing the extra mailing list traffic by their obfuscation. Just answer the questions, clearly and concisely. Then Dean will have what he needs and so will those of us who actually do believe in democracy rather than gamesmanship. Delaying tactics, obfuscations and Dean-bating makes me wonder more and more whether some members of the ARIN board do have something to hide from the membership. Mel Stotyn ************************************************************************ This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. ************************************************************************ From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Feb 5 10:49:32 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:49:32 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <1A707052464EEF48AC199EBFB2B1028F522CA9@neonet-exch1.neonetda.org> References: <03ff01c8677c$a08f2340$1da0a8c0@bobafett> <1A707052464EEF48AC199EBFB2B1028F522CA9@neonet-exch1.neonetda.org> Message-ID: > In summary, for all I know Dean _may_ be misguided and have > his own agenda, but if the things he is saying are false, > then present an official response and discredit him. This list is for ARIN members to have discussions with each other. It is not for windmill-tilters to demand immediate official responses from ARIN staff or directors. And it most certainly is *NOT* for ARIN staff or directors to make statements to defend themselves. They already have other venues to do that with press releases, the web site, and the official twice yearly members meetings. As far as I'm concerned, I'm waiting to see what the ARIN lawyers, staff and directors have to say at the next members meeting before passing any judgement on them. I'm not dumb enough to be suckered by the kind of one-upmanship that Dean has displayed on this list. Now that the question of wrongdoing has been raised, and the chairman of the board has stated that it is being addressed and will be reported at the next members meeting, we should all refrain from speculation. It is better to simply not talk about it at all on the list. If anybody has any information that is material to the accusations, they should send that directly to the ARIN board or the ARIN lawyers. None of us are lawyers so we cannot make any useful judgements on partial information. Other than the entertainment value, what is the point in discussing this at all on this list? --Michael Dillon From jb at jbacher.com Tue Feb 5 10:51:17 2008 From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:51:17 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A885F5.30705@jbacher.com> Dean Anderson wrote: > The entire membership _can_ certainly participate by electronic ballot. > But it is not the case that they did participate. Participation by > electronic ballot requires a ballot to be received by ARIN. Where are > these ballots indicating "abstain"? Where is your legal proof that identifies abstention as requiring active participation? From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Tue Feb 5 10:52:48 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:52:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <1A707052464EEF48AC199EBFB2B1028F522CB4@neonet-exch1.neonetda.org> References: <03ff01c8677c$a08f2340$1da0a8c0@bobafett> <1A707052464EEF48AC199EBFB2B1028F522CB4@neonet-exch1.neonetda.org> Message-ID: CZ> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:18:32 -0500 CZ> From: Christopher Zolla CZ> [F]rom a third party point of view, Dean has maintained a positive CZ> and professional response to every email I have read (I haven't CZ> read them all - but close) questioning his motives and his approach Not so: Dean> By contrast, the persons who want to stop the investigation also Dean> advocate disregarding any current or past wrongdoing, disregarding Dean> facts reflecting negatively on Board Members' character, Dean> disregarding the ARIN bylaws, and disregarding bad faith, false Dean> statements, and conflict of interest of Board Members. They Dean> advocate _against_ ARIN reporting the facts of, for example, what Dean> ARIN has spent on NANOG. They advocate _against_ having quorum Dean> requirements for the election of Board Members. They advocate Dean> _against_ discussion of corporate governance. Their position is Dean> contrary to principles of good corporate governance. I want this investigation stopped. I believe it is premature, unwarranted, and could have been better handled via existing ARIN channels. Yet, according to Dean, as a person who wants to stop the investigation, I also advocate: * Disregarding any current or past wrongdoing (false!) * Disregarding facts reflecting negatively on Board Members' character (false!) * Disregarding bad faith, false statements, and COI of Board (false!) * Advocate against ARIN reporting ... (false!) * Advocate against having quorom requirements (false!) That is but one example of a fallacious and wholly unprofessional statement. It is entirely possible for someone to want the investigation to be stopped _without_ "having something to hide". It is entirely possible to disagree with Dean _without_ espousing what he claims any oponent must think. It is entirely possible for Dean's opponents to be acting altruistically. I believe that, in America, sale of alcoholic beverages should be legal. Does this mean that I am an alcoholic? Nope. That I drink? Wrong again. At this point, I think readers should grab their favorite textbooks and review logical fallacies. Just because one preaches in the name of democracy, justice, liberty, or G-d almighty does not mean that one truly stands for those principles. Hitler claimed to do things in the name of G-d. (Can we just pretend that Quirk's Exception doesn't exist?) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Feb 5 11:02:15 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:02:15 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <20080205144225.GT16313@renesys.com> References: <1A707052464EEF48AC199EBFB2B1028F522CB4@neonet-exch1.neonetda.org> <20080205144225.GT16313@renesys.com> Message-ID: > it has been. dozens and dozens of times of the years. dean > is playing the neo-con playbook: just repeat the same lies > and wait until peopel get tired of correcting them. It's funny that you see Dean's style as neo-con. Back in my university days we had several very active Marxist-Leninist groups on our campus, one of which took over management of the student weekly newspaper for a while. All of the rhetoric and strategy that Dean is using were a daily staple of the Marxist-Lenists. Smoke everywhere, but no fire. The problem is that by doing this they managed to disrupt the normal operation of life until everybody woke up to the fact that they were just a bunch of nutcases. There is a real risk here to ARIN if this kind of activity continues. > one of the things that is going on > here is that so many of us have dean on our personal > killfiles and have vowed to not feed the trolls that he is > given free reign to propagate nonsense on the list without > correction. in general, that's a good policy. in this case > i believe that some people, such as yourself, may be left > with the mistaken believe that there is something credible > (or nefarious) here, when there is, instead, just a > reasonable decision to mostly ignore someone who has very > little credibility. That's what happened back in university. The Marxist-Leninists conned a bunch of students to believe that there really was some fire behind the smoke, and then used those students to be the more public face of their campaign. This is why their activity was so disruptive. It is easy to ignore a few nutcases but it is not so easy to ignore seemingly normal people, who clearly are not Marxist-Leninists, but who express the same concerns. I have no doubt that Dean is trying to recruit some suckers from this list to support him in his campaign. > dean now wants the name of the individual lawyer who > offered that opinion. why? who knows? Dean wants to spend OUR money by forcing us to pay legal fees so that our lawyer can waste time talking to Dean. --Michael Dillon From mstotyn at enmax.com Tue Feb 5 11:10:28 2008 From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:10:28 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> Message-ID: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> > here's what i predict will happen: dean doesn't know me or know anything about me but he'll now try to drag me through > the mud. he'll probably claim that i'm a spammer, murderer, drug dealer international criminal mastermind who is > supporting the devious plan to anycast annoyance into his life. who knows? maybe he'll even sue me. he tries to > intimidate anyone who disagrees with him. _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd at renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog Oh good grief! Dean has not accused anyone of being a "murderer, drug dealer international criminal mastermind" in these discussions. This one final statement undermines the credibility of todd underwood and raises the credibility of Dean Anderson by comparison, since he has not responded in this mode. Who knows? Maybe he will sue you. But I'm sure that he won't do it without a complete investigation and compilation of enough evidence to have a reasonable expectation of at least recovering his legal expenses. Mel Stotyn Senior Operations Specialist ENMAX Envision Inc. mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com Phone: 403 514-3443 ************************************************************************ This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. ************************************************************************ From mhalligan at bitpusher.com Tue Feb 5 11:14:06 2008 From: mhalligan at bitpusher.com (Michael T. Halligan) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:14:06 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Stotyn, Mel wrote: > > >> here's what i predict will happen: dean doesn't know me or know > anything about me but he'll now try to drag me through > the mud. > he'll > probably claim that i'm a spammer, murderer, drug dealer international > criminal mastermind who is >> supporting the devious plan to anycast annoyance into his life. who > knows? maybe he'll even sue me. he tries to >> intimidate anyone who disagrees with him. > > _____________________________________________________________________ > todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 > renesys corporation general manager > babbledog > todd at renesys.com > http://www.renesys.com/blog > > Oh good grief! Dean has not accused anyone of being a "murderer, drug > dealer international criminal mastermind" in these discussions. This > one > final statement undermines the credibility of todd underwood and > raises > the credibility of Dean Anderson by comparison, since he has not > responded in this mode. Who knows? Maybe he will sue you. But I'm sure > that he won't do it without a complete investigation and compilation > of > enough evidence to have a reasonable expectation of at least > recovering > his legal expenses. You're forgetting Dean's accusation of Paul Vixie being involved in organized crime? From http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2007-November/000605.html : "We also have ARIN engaging in extortion of Legacys, as I described previously. This relates to other similar activity, and to an ARIN Board Member previously accused in Court of, among other things, extortion and organized crime, for which a Temporary Restraining Order was issued. Let me try to put some perspective on the issue with some background: Who's who (abbreviated): --------- Paul Vixie is an ARIN Board Member. " Michael T. Halligan ------------------------ Chief Technology Officer BitPusher, LLC http://www.bitpusher.com/ From todd-arin at renesys.com Tue Feb 5 11:15:24 2008 From: todd-arin at renesys.com (Todd Underwood) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:15:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: <20080205161524.GV16313@renesys.com> mel, your humo(u)r bone is malfunctioning. i suggest you seek comical-medical attention. :-) > Oh good grief! Dean has not accused anyone of being a "murderer, drug > dealer international criminal mastermind" in these discussions. This > one no, but he has accused paul vixie, one of the most vehement anti-spam activists and engineers of being a commercial spammer. it's almost as funny. not quite. my joke was funnier. > responded in this mode. Who knows? Maybe he will sue you. But I'm sure > that he won't do it without a complete investigation and compilation of > enough evidence to have a reasonable expectation of at least recovering > his legal expenses. i'm not sure why you are sure of that. the evidence is to the contrary. to each his/her own. t. -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd at renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Tue Feb 5 11:19:39 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:19:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1A707052464EEF48AC199EBFB2B1028F522CB4@neonet-exch1.neonetda.org> <20080205144225.GT16313@renesys.com> Message-ID: > Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:02:15 -0000 > From: michael.dillon at bt.com > [...] forcing us to pay legal fees so that our lawyer can [...] You know, ARIN's legal fees and legal defense fund both outshine NANOG expenses. I'd like an investigation into why ARIN's legal expenditures are so large. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Tue Feb 5 11:25:48 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:25:48 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: MTH> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 08:14:06 -0800 MTH> From: Michael T. Halligan MTH> You're forgetting Dean's accusation of Paul Vixie being involved in MTH> organized crime? MTH> MTH> From http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2007-November/000605.html MTH> : MTH> MTH> "We also have ARIN engaging in extortion of Legacys, as I described MTH> previously. This relates to other similar activity, and to an ARIN Board MTH> Member previously accused in Court of, among other things, extortion and MTH> organized crime, for which a Temporary Restraining Order was issued. Let's also note: "accused of" and "Temporary Restraining Order". Anyone can be accused of anything. Accusation does not translate to guilt. And whatever happened with the TRO, anyhow? Was a permanent injunction ever granted? Was there ever admission of guilt? Did a court provide a ruling? A TRO is _not_ proof of wrongoing. Eddy (not an attorney) -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From mstotyn at enmax.com Tue Feb 5 11:26:12 2008 From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:26:12 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C9@MAIL04.enmax.com> On Feb 5, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Stotyn, Mel wrote: > > >> here's what i predict will happen: dean doesn't know me or know > anything about me but he'll now try to drag me through > the mud. > he'll > probably claim that i'm a spammer, murderer, drug dealer international > criminal mastermind who is >> supporting the devious plan to anycast annoyance into his life. who > knows? maybe he'll even sue me. he tries to >> intimidate anyone who disagrees with him. > > _____________________________________________________________________ > todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 > renesys corporation general manager > babbledog > todd at renesys.com > http://www.renesys.com/blog > > Oh good grief! Dean has not accused anyone of being a "murderer, drug > dealer international criminal mastermind" in these discussions. This > one final statement undermines the credibility of todd underwood and > raises the credibility of Dean Anderson by comparison, since he has > not responded in this mode. Who knows? Maybe he will sue you. But I'm > sure that he won't do it without a complete investigation and > compilation of enough evidence to have a reasonable expectation of at > least recovering his legal expenses. You're forgetting Dean's accusation of Paul Vixie being involved in organized crime? From http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2007-November/000605.html : "We also have ARIN engaging in extortion of Legacys, as I described previously. This relates to other similar activity, and to an ARIN Board Member previously accused in Court of, among other things, extortion and organized crime, for which a Temporary Restraining Order was issued. Let me try to put some perspective on the issue with some background: Who's who (abbreviated): --------- Paul Vixie is an ARIN Board Member. " Michael T. Halligan ------------------------ Chief Technology Officer BitPusher, LLC http://www.bitpusher.com/ Wait a minute, I actually can read. In your quote of Dean: "an ARIN Board Member previously accused in Court of, among other things, extortion and organized crime". This is Dean relating a fact. It is not an accusation of "murderer, drug dealer international criminal mastermind". The phrase "organized crime" does not equate to "international criminal mastermind". I have also done the reading on the history and learned that the accusation carried at least enough weight to result in an injunction. So no, I didn't forget what I read from Dean before. Mel Stotyn Senior Operations Specialist ENMAX Envision Inc. mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com Phone: 403 514-3443 ************************************************************************ This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. ************************************************************************ From Mike at netwright.net Tue Feb 5 11:30:53 2008 From: Mike at netwright.net (Mike Lieberman) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:30:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <03ff01c8677c$a08f2340$1da0a8c0@bobafett> <1A707052464EEF48AC199EBFB2B1028F522CB4@neonet-exch1.neonetda.org> Message-ID: <008301c86814$7a196b60$6e4c4220$@net> Dear Comrade Members, We have degenerated into a 'he said / she said' brawl. This is neither productive nor helpful of anyone's cause. There are those who state - possibly with some cause - that Dean has a secondary agenda and is acting as a bomb thrower. To them I say - OK, but there are two thousand of us and while Dean may be all you say he is. He may be also a legitimately very disgruntled individual who is tired of being treated like a pinhead by those in power and has become obnoxious as his only alternative. Some of us can't tell. As one who could easily be accused of being part of 'the pot calling the kettle black,' I wish to, in all humility, mention that there is on the rare occasion the feeling among some members of others that they are hearing "those of us who know are little amused by the rest of you' at times. So how do the balance of us, the relatively uninvolved members, parse this out? To Dean, we are not lawyers (in the most case at any rate) and your claims here are very technical. I have spent a full decade in court over major matters which are controlled by the minutia of legal language and the meaning of the same. It is painful enough just doing this in court. This thread is just not a good venue for any resolution. Please for your sake and ours, ask for a spot on the Agenda, post any legal opinions you would like us to read at a common spot so that we can consider. Not a blog - just a legal arguments and such - hopefully from a real named lawyer experienced in business law as practiced in Virginia. To the board and staff: Dean may be, in your opinion, a royal pain, but it just doesn't matter. Every organization will have those who drive you crazy. It comes with the territory. What doesn't help is unnamed attorneys and such. And consider - just for the hell of it - that on some one point, Dean may be right and you all - in your communal wisdom are wrong. With respect for all and a desire for a real end to these thread, _________________________ Mike Lieberman, President Net Wright LLC Tel: 307-857-4898 Fax: 307-857-4872 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Edward B. DREGER Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 8:53 AM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance CZ> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:18:32 -0500 CZ> From: Christopher Zolla CZ> [F]rom a third party point of view, Dean has maintained a positive CZ> and professional response to every email I have read (I haven't CZ> read them all - but close) questioning his motives and his approach Not so: Dean> By contrast, the persons who want to stop the investigation also Dean> advocate disregarding any current or past wrongdoing, disregarding Dean> facts reflecting negatively on Board Members' character, Dean> disregarding the ARIN bylaws, and disregarding bad faith, false Dean> statements, and conflict of interest of Board Members. They Dean> advocate _against_ ARIN reporting the facts of, for example, what Dean> ARIN has spent on NANOG. They advocate _against_ having quorum Dean> requirements for the election of Board Members. They advocate Dean> _against_ discussion of corporate governance. Their position is Dean> contrary to principles of good corporate governance. I want this investigation stopped. I believe it is premature, unwarranted, and could have been better handled via existing ARIN channels. Yet, according to Dean, as a person who wants to stop the investigation, I also advocate: * Disregarding any current or past wrongdoing (false!) * Disregarding facts reflecting negatively on Board Members' character (false!) * Disregarding bad faith, false statements, and COI of Board (false!) * Advocate against ARIN reporting ... (false!) * Advocate against having quorom requirements (false!) That is but one example of a fallacious and wholly unprofessional statement. It is entirely possible for someone to want the investigation to be stopped _without_ "having something to hide". It is entirely possible to disagree with Dean _without_ espousing what he claims any oponent must think. It is entirely possible for Dean's opponents to be acting altruistically. I believe that, in America, sale of alcoholic beverages should be legal. Does this mean that I am an alcoholic? Nope. That I drink? Wrong again. At this point, I think readers should grab their favorite textbooks and review logical fallacies. Just because one preaches in the name of democracy, justice, liberty, or G-d almighty does not mean that one truly stands for those principles. Hitler claimed to do things in the name of G-d. (Can we just pretend that Quirk's Exception doesn't exist?) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From mstotyn at enmax.com Tue Feb 5 11:31:14 2008 From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:31:14 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C9@MAIL04.enmax.com> References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com><2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C9@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0CA@MAIL04.enmax.com> > I have also done the reading on the history and learned that the accusation carried at least enough weight to result in > an injunction. So no, I didn't forget what I read from Dean before. My apologies. I reveal my lack of legal training. I refer above to the Temporary Restraining Order, not an injunction. What did come of the TRO? Mel Stotyn Senior Operations Specialist ENMAX Envision Inc. mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com Phone: 403 514-3443 ************************************************************************ This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. ************************************************************************ From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 11:59:04 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:59:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <47A885F5.30705@jbacher.com> Message-ID: The proof is in the meeting. Only the ballots represent members. There were no abstain ballots to be cited as representing members. If there were abstain ballots, they should have been counted. But there were no such ballots. The issue is a question of fact, not law. --Dean On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, J Bacher wrote: > Dean Anderson wrote: > > > The entire membership _can_ certainly participate by electronic ballot. > > But it is not the case that they did participate. Participation by > > electronic ballot requires a ballot to be received by ARIN. Where are > > these ballots indicating "abstain"? > > Where is your legal proof that identifies abstention as requiring active > participation? > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jb at jbacher.com Tue Feb 5 12:10:04 2008 From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:10:04 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A8986C.6090807@jbacher.com> Dean Anderson wrote: > The proof is in the meeting. Only the ballots represent members. There > were no abstain ballots to be cited as representing members. If there > were abstain ballots, they should have been counted. But there were no > such ballots. The issue is a question of fact, not law. Put up or shut up. Where is the legal documentation that defines that an abstention require a vote identifying the abstention? From iis-arin at impulse.net Tue Feb 5 12:28:28 2008 From: iis-arin at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:28:28 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0CA@MAIL04.enmax.com> References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com><2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C9@MAIL04.enmax.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0CA@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: <47A89CBC.2080606@impulse.net> +----------+ | PLEASE | | DO NOT | | FEED THE | | TROLL | +----------+ | | | | .\|.||/.. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 12:30:35 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:30:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Michael T. Halligan wrote: > You're forgetting Dean's accusation of Paul Vixie being involved in > organized crime? The Exactis V. MAPS case was indeed an organized crime case. I assert those facts reflect negatively on the character of Board Member Vixie. I think you agree but object to anything that reflects negatively on the character of Board Member Vixie. The facts I cited are true. You object only to the facts being made known. You have no dispute with the facts. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From GarthB at semaphore.com Tue Feb 5 12:31:45 2008 From: GarthB at semaphore.com (Garth Brown) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:31:45 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <008301c86814$7a196b60$6e4c4220$@net> Message-ID: <5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025304@exchange00.semaphore.lan> If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term or mid-term) are another. Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to actually remediate his claims of problems. I do not believe that this forum is one where ARIN board members are required to respond to any or every accusation within a prompt timeframe. Or at all, for that matter. This is a discussion forum and not a tribunal of accountability. John and others from the board have responded within reasonable timeframes to reasonable questions - and the matter will apparently be discussed in the appropriate forum for such matters (the actual physical meeting). This would also be the appropriate forum for Dean's issues. Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over? You certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why no suit or petition? I strongly support your right to take a legal or electoral action if you have proof of malfeasance. I do not support your continued rhetoric without such action. Finally, your possession of a well-worn legal dictionary no more makes you an attorney that does my mother's possession of a copy of Newton's Telecom Dictionary make her an network engineer. Though I'm glad she has it as a reference, I wouldn't let her touch my routers. Garth Brown From alvin at Iplink.net Tue Feb 5 12:32:44 2008 From: alvin at Iplink.net (Alvin Starr) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:32:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election(More gas{high octane} for the flame war) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A89DBC.7050008@Iplink.net> *From wikipedia. Abstention* is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure , is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote ", in which a participant in a vote cast a deliberately unlegitimate vote (drawing pictures on the ballot, etc.) or in which he simply casts a blank vote: a "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although his vote may be considered a spoilt vote , depending on each legislation, while an abstentionnist hasn't voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered as protest vote . I did not vote. Ergo. I abstained. All those like me also abstained. I am not sure how many others there are like me out there so I will not comment on the majorities opinion or reasons. I did not vote because I am more or less happy with the job ARIN does. I watch from the side lines and since I do not have any active participation I cannot make an informed decision about who to vote for so I do not vote. I could throw darts at the ballot and pick that way but that seems a little silly to me. In life we all must pick the things we will be active in and the things we will be passive in. At times those decisions and reasons change but while I am passive in ARIN I will not be voting. So I abstain. There can be no such thing as an abstain ballot. The concept of an abstain ballot could be best called an oxymoron. Much like sort of pregnant or true lies. Wonderful titles for comedies but silly concepts. This whole thread has become a farce and makes me think of the "FOOD FIGHT" seen in Animal house. In this case it should be more like "FLAME WAR". Dean Anderson wrote: > The proof is in the meeting. Only the ballots represent members. There > were no abstain ballots to be cited as representing members. If there > were abstain ballots, they should have been counted. But there were no > such ballots. The issue is a question of fact, not law. > > --Dean > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, J Bacher wrote: > > >> Dean Anderson wrote: >> >> >>> The entire membership _can_ certainly participate by electronic ballot. >>> But it is not the case that they did participate. Participation by >>> electronic ballot requires a ballot to be received by ARIN. Where are >>> these ballots indicating "abstain"? >>> >> Where is your legal proof that identifies abstention as requiring active >> participation? >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN >> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net >> if you experience any issues. >> >> >> > > -- Alvin Starr || voice: (416)585-9971 Interlink Connectivity || fax: (416)585-9974 alvin at iplink.net || -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Scott.Shackelford at cox.com Tue Feb 5 12:39:24 2008 From: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com (Scott.Shackelford at cox.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:39:24 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025304@exchange00.semaphore.lan> References: <008301c86814$7a196b60$6e4c4220$@net> <5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025304@exchange00.semaphore.lan> Message-ID: Seriously, can this be moved to another (created) thread or list? Really...can someone at ARIN sanction that to happen or do we all have to suffer? Let the people that want to be involved stay involved in another 'place', but those of us that don't; let us out please. My inbox is already maxed out and I can barely keep up with my delete button. /Scott -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Garth Brown Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:32 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term or mid-term) are another. Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to actually remediate his claims of problems. I do not believe that this forum is one where ARIN board members are required to respond to any or every accusation within a prompt timeframe. Or at all, for that matter. This is a discussion forum and not a tribunal of accountability. John and others from the board have responded within reasonable timeframes to reasonable questions - and the matter will apparently be discussed in the appropriate forum for such matters (the actual physical meeting). This would also be the appropriate forum for Dean's issues. Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over? You certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why no suit or petition? I strongly support your right to take a legal or electoral action if you have proof of malfeasance. I do not support your continued rhetoric without such action. Finally, your possession of a well-worn legal dictionary no more makes you an attorney that does my mother's possession of a copy of Newton's Telecom Dictionary make her an network engineer. Though I'm glad she has it as a reference, I wouldn't let her touch my routers. Garth Brown _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From bpasdar at BatBlue.com Tue Feb 5 12:48:17 2008 From: bpasdar at BatBlue.com (Babak Pasdar) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:48:17 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance Message-ID: <8411687.68511202233697064.JavaMail.root@bb-nj1-groupware-1.batblue.com> ARIN List, I second Sott's suggestion whole-heartedly! This has turned into a petty war of minute points that only matter to the involved.? Please spare the rest of us who as Scott suggested do not wish to participate in this matter. Can any ARIN member make a motion to move this thread to its own mailing list?? If so, please count this request as such. Babak Babak Pasdar President & CEO Certified Ethical Hacker Bat Blue Corporation p. 212.461.3322 x3005 f.? 212.584.9999 www.BatBlue.com Bat Blue's Legal Notice: http://batblue.com/page.php?176 ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com Sent: Tue, 2/5/2008 12:39 To: GarthB at semaphore.com ; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance Seriously, can this be moved to another (created) thread or list? Really...can someone at ARIN sanction that to happen or do we all have to suffer? Let the people that want to be involved stay involved in another 'place', but those of us that don't; let us out please. My inbox is already maxed out and I can barely keep up with my delete button. /Scott -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Garth Brown Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:32 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term or mid-term) are another. Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to actually remediate his claims of problems. I do not believe that this forum is one where ARIN board members are required to respond to any or every accusation within a prompt timeframe. Or at all, for that matter. This is a discussion forum and not a tribunal of accountability. John and others from the board have responded within reasonable timeframes to reasonable questions - and the matter will apparently be discussed in the appropriate forum for such matters (the actual physical meeting). This would also be the appropriate forum for Dean's issues. Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over? You certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why no suit or petition? I strongly support your right to take a legal or electoral action if you have proof of malfeasance. I do not support your continued rhetoric without such action. Finally, your possession of a well-worn legal dictionary no more makes you an attorney that does my mother's possession of a copy of Newton's Telecom Dictionary make her an network engineer. Though I'm glad she has it as a reference, I wouldn't let her touch my routers. Garth Brown _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From will at xhinc.net Tue Feb 5 12:49:27 2008 From: will at xhinc.net (Will Everly) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 09:49:27 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <008301c86814$7a196b60$6e4c4220$@net><5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025304@exchange00.semaphore.lan> Message-ID: <017c01c8681f$74e097d0$0401a8c0@portablenb> I agree. This seems like a worthless thread of the same discussion over and over. Will -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott.Shackelford at cox.com Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:39 AM To: GarthB at semaphore.com; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance Seriously, can this be moved to another (created) thread or list? Really...can someone at ARIN sanction that to happen or do we all have to suffer? Let the people that want to be involved stay involved in another 'place', but those of us that don't; let us out please. My inbox is already maxed out and I can barely keep up with my delete button. /Scott -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Garth Brown Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:32 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term or mid-term) are another. Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to actually remediate his claims of problems. I do not believe that this forum is one where ARIN board members are required to respond to any or every accusation within a prompt timeframe. Or at all, for that matter. This is a discussion forum and not a tribunal of accountability. John and others from the board have responded within reasonable timeframes to reasonable questions - and the matter will apparently be discussed in the appropriate forum for such matters (the actual physical meeting). This would also be the appropriate forum for Dean's issues. Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over? You certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why no suit or petition? I strongly support your right to take a legal or electoral action if you have proof of malfeasance. I do not support your continued rhetoric without such action. Finally, your possession of a well-worn legal dictionary no more makes you an attorney that does my mother's possession of a copy of Newton's Telecom Dictionary make her an network engineer. Though I'm glad she has it as a reference, I wouldn't let her touch my routers. Garth Brown _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Tue Feb 5 12:50:27 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:50:27 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: DA> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:30:35 -0500 (EST) DA> From: Dean Anderson DA> I assert those facts reflect negatively on the character of Board DA> Member Vixie. Your repeated posts are accomplishing nothing productive. You've asserted your anti-Vixie standpoint many times in different forums over the years. Your conflict of interest is just as great as that of any Vixie supporter. Please express your concerns via appropriate ARIN channels. Or via legal action if you feel that standard channels have failed. And then wait patiently while procedures are in motion. And if there must be an investigation into the board... let it be led by a neutral third party with no COI regarding any of the members. You do not fit the bill. You certainly could give input to any investigator, but are no more qualified to lead such an inquiry than a friend of Vixie would be. I've had my fill of bluster and filibuster. ARIN: How about an "arin-oversight at arin.net" mailing list dedicated to this sort of talk? I'm concerned that this endless discussion is alienating people who otherwise may be inclined to provide valuable insight and opinions dealing with ARIN operations. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From dsd at servervault.com Tue Feb 5 13:01:16 2008 From: dsd at servervault.com (Divins, David) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:01:16 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <017c01c8681f$74e097d0$0401a8c0@portablenb> References: <008301c86814$7a196b60$6e4c4220$@net><5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025304@exchange00.semaphore.lan> <017c01c8681f$74e097d0$0401a8c0@portablenb> Message-ID: This might be a good time to discuss the possibility of Migrating from Mail lists to Web Forums. It would allow threads as these to live only to those interested, yet cause no concern for stifling free discussion. Thoughts? -dsd David Divins Principal Engineer ServerVault Corp. (703) 652-5955 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Will Everly Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:49 PM To: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com; GarthB at semaphore.com; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance I agree. This seems like a worthless thread of the same discussion over and over. Will -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott.Shackelford at cox.com Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:39 AM To: GarthB at semaphore.com; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance Seriously, can this be moved to another (created) thread or list? Really...can someone at ARIN sanction that to happen or do we all have to suffer? Let the people that want to be involved stay involved in another 'place', but those of us that don't; let us out please. My inbox is already maxed out and I can barely keep up with my delete button. /Scott -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Garth Brown Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:32 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term or mid-term) are another. Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to actually remediate his claims of problems. I do not believe that this forum is one where ARIN board members are required to respond to any or every accusation within a prompt timeframe. Or at all, for that matter. This is a discussion forum and not a tribunal of accountability. John and others from the board have responded within reasonable timeframes to reasonable questions - and the matter will apparently be discussed in the appropriate forum for such matters (the actual physical meeting). This would also be the appropriate forum for Dean's issues. Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over? You certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why no suit or petition? I strongly support your right to take a legal or electoral action if you have proof of malfeasance. I do not support your continued rhetoric without such action. Finally, your possession of a well-worn legal dictionary no more makes you an attorney that does my mother's possession of a copy of Newton's Telecom Dictionary make her an network engineer. Though I'm glad she has it as a reference, I wouldn't let her touch my routers. Garth Brown _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From aaronh at bind.com Tue Feb 5 13:34:22 2008 From: aaronh at bind.com (Aaron Hughes) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:34:22 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Mailing lists vs Web Forums. Message-ID: <20080205183422.GQ502@iowait.bind.com> Removed inappropriate message-id and corrected subject. On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Divins, David wrote: > This might be a good time to discuss the possibility of Migrating from > Mail lists to Web Forums. It would allow threads as these to live only > to those interested, yet cause no concern for stifling free discussion. > > Thoughts? If I had to use a web forum, I would never read any of it. Mail clients have threading support for good reason and many of us depend on procmail rules etc for managing our list traffic. I do not have a problem with the addition of a web based digest as long as it copies the list and is not a replacement. List managers such as mailman have this feature built in. Cheers, Aaron > > -dsd > > David Divins > Principal Engineer > ServerVault Corp. > (703) 652-5955 > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Will Everly > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:49 PM > To: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com; GarthB at semaphore.com; > arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate > Governance > > I agree. This seems like a worthless thread of the same discussion over > and over. > > Will > -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at bind.com (703) 244-0427 Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8 http://www.bind.com/ From owen at delong.com Tue Feb 5 13:36:55 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 10:36:55 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <008301c86814$7a196b60$6e4c4220$@net><5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025304@exchange00.semaphore.lan> <017c01c8681f$74e097d0$0401a8c0@portablenb> Message-ID: <37A43F2D-3D8F-4141-B6F0-794D0490C520@delong.com> Personally (and speaking only for myself in this context), I prefer mailing lists. Yes, threads like this can pose a challenge, but, they are actually rare and the disadvantages (in terms of level of participation in new threads) outweigh the advantages in this situation. Owen On Feb 5, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Divins, David wrote: > This might be a good time to discuss the possibility of Migrating from > Mail lists to Web Forums. It would allow threads as these to live > only > to those interested, yet cause no concern for stifling free > discussion. > > Thoughts? > > -dsd > > David Divins > Principal Engineer > ServerVault Corp. > (703) 652-5955 > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Will Everly > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:49 PM > To: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com; GarthB at semaphore.com; > arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of > Corporate > Governance > > I agree. This seems like a worthless thread of the same discussion > over > and over. > > Will > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] > On Behalf Of Scott.Shackelford at cox.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:39 AM > To: GarthB at semaphore.com; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance > > > Seriously, can this be moved to another (created) thread or list? > > Really...can someone at ARIN sanction that to happen or do we all have > to suffer? Let the people that want to be involved stay involved in > another 'place', but those of us that don't; let us out please. > > My inbox is already maxed out and I can barely keep up with my delete > button. > > /Scott > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Garth Brown > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:32 PM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance > > If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are > many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from > within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term > or > mid-term) are another. > > Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to > actually remediate his claims of problems. > > I do not believe that this forum is one where ARIN board members are > required to respond to any or every accusation within a prompt > timeframe. Or at all, for that matter. This is a discussion forum and > not a tribunal of accountability. John and others from the board have > responded within reasonable timeframes to reasonable questions - and > the > matter will apparently be discussed in the appropriate forum for such > matters (the actual physical meeting). This would also be the > appropriate forum for Dean's issues. > > Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, > why is > it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who > have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action > to > make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over? You > certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why no suit or petition? > > I strongly support your right to take a legal or electoral action if > you > have proof of malfeasance. I do not support your continued rhetoric > without such action. > > Finally, your possession of a well-worn legal dictionary no more makes > you an attorney that does my mother's possession of a copy of Newton's > Telecom Dictionary make her an network engineer. Though I'm glad she > has > it as a reference, I wouldn't let her touch my routers. > > Garth Brown > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if > you experience any issues. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Feb 5 13:40:25 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:40:25 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C9@MAIL04.enmax.com> References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com><2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C9@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: > Wait a minute, I actually can read. In your quote of Dean: > "an ARIN Board Member previously accused in Court of, among > other things, extortion and organized crime". This is Dean > relating a fact. It is not an accusation of "murderer, drug > dealer international criminal mastermind". Facts are not relevant here. This is not a court of law. If this were a court of law, there would be rules of evidence and rules of decorum and rules of procedure that would not allow Dean to present such accusations without backing them up and showing how they are relevant to the lawsuit being tried. But, as I said, this is not a court of law and anyone can fling around untrue accusations, half-truths, hearsay, twelfth-hand stale news stories and so on. This may contribute to the entertainment of ARIN members, but does nothing to lead us towards the truth of the matter. > The phrase > "organized crime" > does not equate to "international criminal mastermind". I > have also done the reading on the history and learned that > the accusation carried at least enough weight to result in an > injunction. So what!? Lots of courts issue stupid injunctions when they are presented with false and misleading material. If a complainant lies to his lawyer, then the lawyer can talk a judge into an injunction. If the lawyer (or someone else's lawyer) shows that there is no justification for the injunction, it is overruled or withdrawn. This is meaningless. It has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the subject of the injunction did anything illegal. It says more about the gullibility of some lawyers than anything else. --Michael Dillon From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Feb 5 13:42:52 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 18:42:52 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C7@MAIL04.enmax.com> References: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C7@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: > I can see where the hot air is coming from. It isn't Dean. > The lawyers name needn't be confidential. It never was confidential. Many ARIN members are aware of the name of ARIN's lawyer, having heard (or read) his reports at ARIN members meetings. The question need not have been asked on this list, since it was directed to the chairman, not to the members. And it certainly need not have been answered on this list since the answer also was not directed to the members. --Michael Dillon From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 13:51:09 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:51:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <47A8986C.6090807@jbacher.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, J Bacher wrote: > Dean Anderson wrote: > > The proof is in the meeting. Only the ballots represent members. There > > were no abstain ballots to be cited as representing members. If there > > were abstain ballots, they should have been counted. But there were no > > such ballots. The issue is a question of fact, not law. > > Put up or shut up. Where is the legal documentation that defines that an > abstention require a vote identifying the abstention? Where is your proof they abstained? You put up or shut up. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jb at jbacher.com Tue Feb 5 13:54:11 2008 From: jb at jbacher.com (J Bacher) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:54:11 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47A8B0D3.406@jbacher.com> Dean Anderson wrote: >>> The proof is in the meeting. Only the ballots represent members. There >>> were no abstain ballots to be cited as representing members. If there >>> were abstain ballots, they should have been counted. But there were no >>> such ballots. The issue is a question of fact, not law. >> Put up or shut up. Where is the legal documentation that defines that an >> abstention require a vote identifying the abstention? > > Where is your proof they abstained? You put up or shut up. Gee there's a surprise. You don't have it. Pretty much makes your entire complaint invalid. Thanks for participating, though. From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 13:55:28 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:55:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025304@exchange00.semaphore.lan> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Garth Brown wrote: > If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are > many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from > within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term > or mid-term) are another. > > Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to > actually remediate his claims of problems. Investigation and discussion with ARIN members is one legitimate avenue. This is the forum for that investigation and discussion. > Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, Several months does not seem to be too quick to respond. > why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this > forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and > valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric > over and over? You certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why > no suit or petition? Investigation and discussion precedes both suit and petition. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From CRiling at cisp.com Tue Feb 5 14:04:09 2008 From: CRiling at cisp.com (Chris Riling) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:04:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <47A8B0D3.406@jbacher.com> Message-ID: I don't post here often, but for such an occasion, I feel it necessary. Could everyone please abstain from flooding my inbox with personal attacks and immaturity, and please stick to relevant, on topic conversations. I should be able to maintian my list membership without being subjected to this bickering. Please take it off-list for the benefit of all members. I agree that if there are injustices / impromper actions by those involved with ARIN, it is related to public membership, but I think the conversation has moved well beyond that. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of J Bacher Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:54 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election Dean Anderson wrote: >>> The proof is in the meeting. Only the ballots represent members. There >>> were no abstain ballots to be cited as representing members. If there >>> were abstain ballots, they should have been counted. But there were no >>> such ballots. The issue is a question of fact, not law. >> Put up or shut up. Where is the legal documentation that defines that an >> abstention require a vote identifying the abstention? > > Where is your proof they abstained? You put up or shut up. Gee there's a surprise. You don't have it. Pretty much makes your entire complaint invalid. Thanks for participating, though. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Chris Riling.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 240 bytes Desc: Chris Riling.vcf URL: From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Feb 5 14:11:38 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:11:38 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > The Exactis V. MAPS case was indeed an organized crime case. > The facts I cited are true. Not according to this copy of the court motion http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html In that document, the claim of organized crime does not appear in the Statement of Facts (section II) but in the Legal Argument (section III). According to this record http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis.html the lawsuit with its claim of organized crime, did not succeed, as Exactis claimed it would in their injunction request. Instead, the case was dismissed. Half truths and innuendo are not facts. --Michael Dillon From paul at vix.com Tue Feb 5 14:19:50 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:19:50 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:25:48 GMT." References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: <9998.1202239190@sa.vix.com> > Let's also note: "accused of" and "Temporary Restraining Order". Anyone > can be accused of anything. Accusation does not translate to guilt. agreed. > And whatever happened with the TRO, anyhow? Was a permanent injunction > ever granted? no. > Was there ever admission of guilt? no. > Did a court provide a ruling? no. > A TRO is _not_ proof of wrongoing. agreed. From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Tue Feb 5 14:20:21 2008 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:20:21 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Mailing lists vs Web Forums. In-Reply-To: <20080205183422.GQ502@iowait.bind.com> References: <20080205183422.GQ502@iowait.bind.com> Message-ID: <20080205192021.GA13739@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:34:22AM -0800, Aaron Hughes wrote: > Removed inappropriate message-id and corrected subject. > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Divins, David wrote: > > This might be a good time to discuss the possibility of Migrating from > > Mail lists to Web Forums. It would allow threads as these to live only > > to those interested, yet cause no concern for stifling free discussion. > > > > Thoughts? > > > If I had to use a web forum, I would never read any of it. Mail > clients have threading support for good reason and many of us depend on > procmail rules etc for managing our list traffic. > > I do not have a problem with the addition of a web based digest as > long as it copies the list and is not a replacement. List managers such > as mailman have this feature built in. me too From swm at emanon.com Tue Feb 5 14:22:22 2008 From: swm at emanon.com (Scott Morris) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:22:22 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Mailing lists vs Web Forums. In-Reply-To: <20080205183422.GQ502@iowait.bind.com> References: <20080205183422.GQ502@iowait.bind.com> Message-ID: <004501c8682c$6f498cc0$6ad2640a@CCIEJNCIE> I agree. I have inbox rules to assist in appropriate filing, and a very handy Ctrl-D to help manage innocuous messages. Web mail would never get read. Less so than some current discussions. :) Scott -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Aaron Hughes Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:34 PM To: Divins, David Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Mailing lists vs Web Forums. Removed inappropriate message-id and corrected subject. On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:01:16PM -0500, Divins, David wrote: > This might be a good time to discuss the possibility of Migrating from > Mail lists to Web Forums. It would allow threads as these to live > only to those interested, yet cause no concern for stifling free discussion. > > Thoughts? If I had to use a web forum, I would never read any of it. Mail clients have threading support for good reason and many of us depend on procmail rules etc for managing our list traffic. I do not have a problem with the addition of a web based digest as long as it copies the list and is not a replacement. List managers such as mailman have this feature built in. Cheers, Aaron > > -dsd > > David Divins > Principal Engineer > ServerVault Corp. > (703) 652-5955 > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Will Everly > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:49 PM > To: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com; GarthB at semaphore.com; > arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of > Corporate Governance > > I agree. This seems like a worthless thread of the same discussion > over and over. > > Will > -- Aaron Hughes aaronh at bind.com (703) 244-0427 Key fingerprint = AD 67 37 60 7D 73 C5 B7 33 18 3F 36 C3 1C C6 B8 http://www.bind.com/ _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From paul at vix.com Tue Feb 5 14:22:35 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:22:35 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:31:14 MST." <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0CA@MAIL04.enmax.com> References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com><2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C8@MAIL04.enmax.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C9@MAIL04.enmax.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0CA@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: <10112.1202239355@sa.vix.com> > My apologies. I reveal my lack of legal training. I refer above to the > Temporary Restraining Order, not an injunction. What did come of the TRO? vacated without prejudice. From billf at powerset.com Tue Feb 5 14:30:29 2008 From: billf at powerset.com (Bill Fumerola) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:30:29 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0C7@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: "Stotyn, Mel" on 2/5/08 7:35 AM scribed thusly: > I can see where the hot air is coming from. It isn't Dean. The lawyers > name needn't be confidential. Therefore, it is ARIN principals that are > causing the extra mailing list traffic by their obfuscation. Just answer > the questions, clearly and concisely. Then Dean will have what he needs > and so will those of us who actually do believe in democracy rather than > gamesmanship. Delaying tactics, obfuscations and Dean-bating makes me > wonder more and more whether some members of the ARIN board do have > something to hide from the membership. all of dean's requests should be made privately. you can read into what his real concern is by dragging this out in a public forum. the same guy who relentlessly bitches about unnecessary ARIN expenditures is now causing more of them. ARIN's time, legal fees, time from the members of this list (and ppml@'s), and so on. i'm sure the readership would be just as well served by Mr. Anderson posting a summary of his findings, his lawyer's findings, his lawyer's actions, etc. this is just yet another public forum for Dean to cause a ruckus, claim he was wronged, throw around legal terms, hide behind a lawyer when convenient, and in the end resolve or prove nothing. you can see why arguing this privately works against his goals. i'm sure Dean will explain our 'right to know'. just because we have that right doesn't mean we want other people deciding to cram that knowledge through these lists, clogging them for real work. this recent pissing match started out about quorum, but will move into the vixie maps etc conspiracy talk real soon if not already (haven't read through the rest of the thread). from last year, my prediction on how Dean's recent presence will play out: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/2007-July/007919.html - bill From todd-arin at renesys.com Tue Feb 5 14:33:31 2008 From: todd-arin at renesys.com (Todd Underwood) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:33:31 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: <47A8986C.6090807@jbacher.com> Message-ID: <20080205193331.GB6212@renesys.com> > > Put up or shut up. Where is the legal documentation that defines that an > > abstention require a vote identifying the abstention? > > Where is your proof they abstained? You put up or shut up. they didn't vote. what silliness. t. -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd at renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog From GarthB at semaphore.com Tue Feb 5 14:42:31 2008 From: GarthB at semaphore.com (Garth Brown) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:42:31 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F0102531A@exchange00.semaphore.lan> Dean, You have still not responded to my core question. Specifically: "why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over?" I believe people are trying to tell you that your tactics have ceased to be effective. Without credible follow-through they amount to a witch hunt. Work within the system defined by the organization you assert you are protecting. Please answer my core question. Garth Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com] > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Garth Brown wrote: > > > If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are > > many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from > > within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term > > or mid-term) are another. > > > > Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to > > actually remediate his claims of problems. > > Investigation and discussion with ARIN members is one > legitimate avenue. > This is the forum for that investigation and discussion. > > > Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, > > Several months does not seem to be too quick to respond. > > > why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this > > forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and > > valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric > > over and over? You certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why > > no suit or petition? > > Investigation and discussion precedes both suit and petition. > > --Dean From paul at vix.com Tue Feb 5 14:44:20 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:44:20 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:32:44 EST." <47A89DBC.7050008@Iplink.net> References: <47A89DBC.7050008@Iplink.net> Message-ID: <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> today is an election day in my state, and so, the following caught my eye: > I did not vote. Ergo. I abstained. > All those like me also abstained. i wish that you would vote, and that all others like you would vote. not just in today's election (if your state is having one), and in the next ARIN election, but in all elections where you are eligible. > ... I cannot make an informed decision about who to vote for so I do not > vote. I could throw darts at the ballot and pick that way but that seems a > little silly to me. In life we all must pick the things we will be active > in and the things we will be passive in. At times those decisions and > reasons change but while I am passive in ARIN I will not be voting. So I > abstain. is there any way ARIN can augment or restructure the election process to give you more information about the candidates and issues, and lower the apparent bar to your informed participation? From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Feb 5 14:51:57 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:51:57 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bill Fumerola >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:30 AM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election > > >"Stotyn, Mel" on 2/5/08 7:35 AM scribed thusly: >> I can see where the hot air is coming from. It isn't Dean. The lawyers >> name needn't be confidential. Therefore, it is ARIN principals that are >> causing the extra mailing list traffic by their obfuscation. Just answer >> the questions, clearly and concisely. Then Dean will have what he needs >> and so will those of us who actually do believe in democracy rather than >> gamesmanship. Delaying tactics, obfuscations and Dean-bating makes me >> wonder more and more whether some members of the ARIN board do have >> something to hide from the membership. > >all of dean's requests should be made privately. you can read into what his >real concern is by dragging this out in a public forum. His real concern is that he wants a revote and he wants "his" candidate voted for, and he wants this other candidate he doesen't like voted against. I won't bother naming the candidates since we all know who they are. What I think Dean is missing is that his insistence that there wasn't a quorum is annoying the very people who he wants to vote against this candidate that he doesen't like. Thus, if he succeeds in getting ARIN to say "OK Dean, your right, we are going to have another election" it is going to very likely guarentee a landslide for the precise candidate that he doesen't want on the board, because people who are annoyed by all of this on the list are now going to go out of their way to vote for the candidate that Dean doesen't want. If I was running for election for something I would very much want Dean to be in favor of the opposition since his talk would guarentee to piss off all of my opponent's supporters. I really see only the following 3 scenarios that this can play out: 1) Dean proves there was no quorum, the election is invalidated, a revote is held and quorum is still not met - necessitating the "990 purge" that I am requesting - followed by yet another revote that does meet quorum, which is a landslide for the candidate Dean does not want. 2) Dean proves there was no quorum and the election is invalidated, the bylaws are specifically amended to allow for board elections that don't meet quorum, a revote is held which is a landslide for the candidate Dean does not want. 3) Dean fails to prove quorum applies and nothing happens. In all of these scenarios I do not see that this candidate Dean does not like will be denied a seat on the board. If Dean really thought that the ARIN board had a problem, he could simply run for a position on the board during the next election. After all it's not like there's a ton of people all arguing with each other trying to get on the ARIN board. Of course that would require that he put forth his position in a manner that didn't piss off people. Ted From hcrowder at empiricalnetworks.com Tue Feb 5 15:06:37 2008 From: hcrowder at empiricalnetworks.com (Harry Crowder) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:06:37 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> References: <47A89DBC.7050008@Iplink.net> <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <18A9DD053D1E4297909C15F8D068FAE4@hc> The company I work for is an ARIN member. I personaly would like to see an email sent to the lists before a vote is called with details of what the vote is about. I think this would be more usefull that having to check the website for upcoming information. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:44 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting today is an election day in my state, and so, the following caught my eye: > I did not vote. Ergo. I abstained. > All those like me also abstained. i wish that you would vote, and that all others like you would vote. not just in today's election (if your state is having one), and in the next ARIN election, but in all elections where you are eligible. > ... I cannot make an informed decision about who to vote for so I do > not vote. I could throw darts at the ballot and pick that way but > that seems a little silly to me. In life we all must pick the things > we will be active in and the things we will be passive in. At times > those decisions and reasons change but while I am passive in ARIN I > will not be voting. So I abstain. is there any way ARIN can augment or restructure the election process to give you more information about the candidates and issues, and lower the apparent bar to your informed participation? _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From broswell at syssrc.com Tue Feb 5 15:03:02 2008 From: broswell at syssrc.com (Bob Roswell) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:03:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15BDDC14871D2A49BFCEEEF409EB298305127702@exchange.SYSSRCAD.SYSSRC.com> We have a possible legal issue and a much bigger practical issue. An organization like ARIN is seriously compromised when the officers are not supported by the vast majority of the members. It seems to me that the officers elected in the disputed election should be ladies and gentleman and should resign for the benefit of the organization they represent. Then we should take a new vote. Prior non-participants (like me) will probably vote this time. Bob Roswell System Source broswell at syssrc.com (410) 771-5544 ext 4336 From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Feb 5 15:07:57 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:07:57 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Paul Vixie >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:44 AM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting > > >today is an election day in my state, and so, the following caught my eye: > >> I did not vote. Ergo. I abstained. >> All those like me also abstained. > >i wish that you would vote, and that all others like you would vote. not >just in today's election (if your state is having one), and in the next >ARIN election, but in all elections where you are eligible. > >> ... I cannot make an informed decision about who to vote for so I do not >> vote. I could throw darts at the ballot and pick that way but >that seems a >> little silly to me. In life we all must pick the things we will >be active >> in and the things we will be passive in. At times those decisions and >> reasons change but while I am passive in ARIN I will not be voting. So I >> abstain. > >is there any way ARIN can augment or restructure the election >process to give >you more information about the candidates and issues, and lower >the apparent >bar to your informed participation? > Paul I'll respond to this for myself. There's 2 things I look for with these types of elections. The first is if the candidate is trustworthy. I don't think that for the ARIN board elections that this is really much of an issue - I think everyone I've seen up for election is trustworthy, they all work in the industry, all know what they are doing, etc. The second thing I look for is what the cadidate's opinions or position on "the controversial issues" is. This here is where I think the problem is. First I don't think that ARIN really does as good a job listing out the controversial issues. For example, what are we going to do about IPv6? There is plenty of controversy there in how best to transition to it. ARIN's position is that it's a member's problem. Fine. Well, I think the least that ARIN could do is synthesize (from the list if nowhere else) what the different paths to IPv6 transition are and outline them for the membership. Instead, all ARIN has done is vote to do more education which is a very non-specific response. Other controversial issues are fees charged to address holders (or the lack thereof) the privacy vs societies need to know on whois records, what constitutes utilization, etc. etc. In most instances ARIN simply punts on these issues back to the membership. Well the membership is arguing amongst themselves over these issues, and nobody is even putting up some signs as to what the arguments are - so people waste endless time redefining things, and nobody gets anywhere. ARIN isn't going to be able to SOLVE these issues - but it surely can DEFINE these issues. And this then ties into the elections. If you want to increase election participation then I would suggest doing this: ARIN defines a series of issues - controversial or not - that need some sort of future resolution. The membership can argue all it wants on how to define these issues, ARIN should ignore this and just stick to trying to define them. The candidates for the board each then provide a platform of their position on these issues. For example, you were just elected. What is YOUR position on IPv6? I don't really know. Do you see why I don't feel competent to vote for or against you? Ted From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Tue Feb 5 15:15:58 2008 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:15:58 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance References: <008301c86814$7a196b60$6e4c4220$@net><5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025304@exchange00.semaphore.lan><017c01c8681f$74e097d0$0401a8c0@portablenb> Message-ID: I concur with this suggestion!....and money well spend in my opinion! ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Divins, David Sent: Tue 2/5/2008 12:01 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance This might be a good time to discuss the possibility of Migrating from Mail lists to Web Forums. It would allow threads as these to live only to those interested, yet cause no concern for stifling free discussion. Thoughts? -dsd David Divins Principal Engineer ServerVault Corp. (703) 652-5955 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Will Everly Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:49 PM To: Scott.Shackelford at cox.com; GarthB at semaphore.com; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance I agree. This seems like a worthless thread of the same discussion over and over. Will -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott.Shackelford at cox.com Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 9:39 AM To: GarthB at semaphore.com; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance Seriously, can this be moved to another (created) thread or list? Really...can someone at ARIN sanction that to happen or do we all have to suffer? Let the people that want to be involved stay involved in another 'place', but those of us that don't; let us out please. My inbox is already maxed out and I can barely keep up with my delete button. /Scott -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Garth Brown Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:32 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term or mid-term) are another. Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to actually remediate his claims of problems. I do not believe that this forum is one where ARIN board members are required to respond to any or every accusation within a prompt timeframe. Or at all, for that matter. This is a discussion forum and not a tribunal of accountability. John and others from the board have responded within reasonable timeframes to reasonable questions - and the matter will apparently be discussed in the appropriate forum for such matters (the actual physical meeting). This would also be the appropriate forum for Dean's issues. Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over? You certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why no suit or petition? I strongly support your right to take a legal or electoral action if you have proof of malfeasance. I do not support your continued rhetoric without such action. Finally, your possession of a well-worn legal dictionary no more makes you an attorney that does my mother's possession of a copy of Newton's Telecom Dictionary make her an network engineer. Though I'm glad she has it as a reference, I wouldn't let her touch my routers. Garth Brown _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsd at servervault.com Tue Feb 5 15:17:44 2008 From: dsd at servervault.com (Divins, David) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:17:44 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: <15BDDC14871D2A49BFCEEEF409EB298305127702@exchange.SYSSRCAD.SYSSRC.com> References: <15BDDC14871D2A49BFCEEEF409EB298305127702@exchange.SYSSRCAD.SYSSRC.com> Message-ID: Huh? I think the vast majority support the current board and there work. I would hope that the board members respect the process and stay on. -dsd David Divins Principal Engineer ServerVault Corp. (703) 652-5955 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bob Roswell Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 3:03 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute We have a possible legal issue and a much bigger practical issue. An organization like ARIN is seriously compromised when the officers are not supported by the vast majority of the members. It seems to me that the officers elected in the disputed election should be ladies and gentleman and should resign for the benefit of the organization they represent. Then we should take a new vote. Prior non-participants (like me) will probably vote this time. Bob Roswell System Source broswell at syssrc.com (410) 771-5544 ext 4336 _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Feb 5 15:18:04 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:18:04 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: <15BDDC14871D2A49BFCEEEF409EB298305127702@exchange.SYSSRCAD.SYSSRC.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Bob Roswell >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:03 PM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute > > > We have a possible legal issue and a much bigger practical >issue. An organization like ARIN is seriously compromised when the >officers are not supported by the vast majority of the members. > > It seems to me that the officers elected in the disputed >election should be ladies and gentleman and should resign for the >benefit of the organization they represent. Then we should take a new >vote. Prior non-participants (like me) will probably vote this time. > > It seems to me that Dean has committed to the list membership that when given the name of the attorney at ARIN that issued the opinion that his complaint was without merit, that he would have his lawyer call the ARIN law firm. He has been given that name yesterday but I have not seen anything from him saying that his lawyer has even tried calling the ARIN lawyer. Until Deal lives up to his commitments, I really feel that we should not proceed any further in reacting to this complaint. If they all resign and a revote does not meet quorum then we will be worse off then before as then there will be no board - if your going to operate on the argument that quorum is required for the board to be supported, that is. ARIN has not. Let's see how this pans out first. Ted From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Tue Feb 5 15:20:35 2008 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:20:35 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting References: <47A89DBC.7050008@Iplink.net><11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> <18A9DD053D1E4297909C15F8D068FAE4@hc> Message-ID: Member services sends multiple announcements and reminders about elections and voting... bd ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Harry Crowder Sent: Tue 2/5/2008 2:06 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting The company I work for is an ARIN member. I personaly would like to see an email sent to the lists before a vote is called with details of what the vote is about. I think this would be more usefull that having to check the website for upcoming information. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:44 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting today is an election day in my state, and so, the following caught my eye: > I did not vote. Ergo. I abstained. > All those like me also abstained. i wish that you would vote, and that all others like you would vote. not just in today's election (if your state is having one), and in the next ARIN election, but in all elections where you are eligible. > ... I cannot make an informed decision about who to vote for so I do > not vote. I could throw darts at the ballot and pick that way but > that seems a little silly to me. In life we all must pick the things > we will be active in and the things we will be passive in. At times > those decisions and reasons change but while I am passive in ARIN I > will not be voting. So I abstain. is there any way ARIN can augment or restructure the election process to give you more information about the candidates and issues, and lower the apparent bar to your informed participation? _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 15:26:50 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:26:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > I can see where the hot air is coming from. It isn't Dean. > > The lawyers name needn't be confidential. > > It never was confidential. Many ARIN members are aware of the > name of ARIN's lawyer, having heard (or read) his reports at > ARIN members meetings. Steve Ryan isn't the only attorney who works for ARIN. One can't just assume that Steve Ryan wrote the opinion. Hence the direct question. > The question need not have been asked on this list, since it > was directed to the chairman, not to the members. ARIN has asked that questions not be posed directly to board members, offlist. I suppose that a public record of questions and answers is a good thing. > And it certainly need not have been answered on this list since the > answer also was not directed to the members. The other members also have an interest in the answer. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From mksmith at adhost.com Tue Feb 5 15:38:30 2008 From: mksmith at adhost.com (Michael K. Smith - Adhost) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 12:38:30 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> References: <47A89DBC.7050008@Iplink.net> <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316035549A8@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Hello Paul (et. al.) I think the present email announcements and availability of candidate bios on the website prior to voting is "sufficient" but perhaps a few augmentations may help if they are not cost-prohibitive. 1) Town Hall Meeting - right now the candidates for some of the positions have time allotted at the appropriate ARIN meeting, but there are many who don't/can't attend. Perhaps adding a web-interactive component would give everyone a chance to participate. This does speak to a larger question of web-casting the meeting for voting on all issues as well, but that's probably beyond the scope of your question. 2) Speaking to Ted's response - perhaps a list-developed set of hot button issues that are presented to the candidates and to which all responses are posted to the list. Question 1: do you still beat your wife? Contestant 1 Answer: Contestant 2 Answer: Question 2: and so on. 5) Specific modification to bylaws indicating non-participation equates to abstention. I think the due diligence of notifying members multiple times plus making the candidates info available on the web is sufficient for this purpose. IANAL of course. Regards, Mike Smith Adhost Internet, LLC. > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss- > bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:44 AM > To: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting > > today is an election day in my state, and so, the following caught my > eye: > > > I did not vote. Ergo. I abstained. > > All those like me also abstained. > > i wish that you would vote, and that all others like you would vote. > not > just in today's election (if your state is having one), and in the next > ARIN election, but in all elections where you are eligible. > > > ... I cannot make an informed decision about who to vote for so I do > not > > vote. I could throw darts at the ballot and pick that way but that > seems a > > little silly to me. In life we all must pick the things we will be > active > > in and the things we will be passive in. At times those decisions > and > > reasons change but while I am passive in ARIN I will not be voting. > So I > > abstain. > > is there any way ARIN can augment or restructure the election process > to give > you more information about the candidates and issues, and lower the > apparent > bar to your informed participation? > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 475 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 15:40:27 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:40:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <10112.1202239355@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Paul Vixie wrote: > > My apologies. I reveal my lack of legal training. I refer above to the > > Temporary Restraining Order, not an injunction. What did come of the TRO? > > vacated without prejudice. The "without prejudice" is important. I won't go into that, though, except to say that it weakens Vixie/MAPS position. Vacated "with prejudice" would mean that Exactis can't come back on that issue. The order was vacated after MAPS/Vixie's attorney was chastised, and after MAPS settled out of court with Exactis, agreeing (MAPS published the settlement agreement for a few days on its web site) to specific liquidated damages and agreeing never to block Exactis. I'll put up the docket, the complaint, and the responses from Vixie and MAPS for those who are interested. The best read, I think, to get a general sense of what Vixie/MAPS did is found in the Memoranda submitted by Exactis in support of the TRO that is online at http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html This document contains (for example) the words of the MAPS' employees threatening Exactis if they contact a lawyer. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From michael.dillon at bt.com Tue Feb 5 15:40:49 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:40:49 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] No quorum in last election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > ARIN has asked that questions not be posed directly to board > members, offlist. I suppose that a public record of > questions and answers is a good thing. If that is so, then why does ARIN post this page: with the email address of every member of the board? In playing around with Google I think I found out why Dean is so angry with NANOG. It seems that there really is a lot of history behind this mudslinging. The next member's meeting in Denver will be interesting. --Michael Dillon From mstotyn at enmax.com Tue Feb 5 15:43:37 2008 From: mstotyn at enmax.com (Stotyn, Mel) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:43:37 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: <15BDDC14871D2A49BFCEEEF409EB298305127702@exchange.SYSSRCAD.SYSSRC.com> References: <15BDDC14871D2A49BFCEEEF409EB298305127702@exchange.SYSSRCAD.SYSSRC.com> Message-ID: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0CE@MAIL04.enmax.com> I think we need resolution of whether a quorum is necessary. I don't think that there is agreement yet. If Dean's lawyer talks to ARIN's lawyer, perhaps we will then know. If a quorum is necessary, how can it be verified? With e-mail notice and vote, what constitutes a meeting participant? How is it possible to differentiate between someone who is aware of the vote but chooses not to vote vs. someone who was not notified of the vote because of stale contact information? Do we need the member list scrubbed? Can we correlate space allocation information with the member list? I think that if an entity has IP space allocated to it, then it's a member, even if it ceases to operate and can't be contacted. This seems similar to e-mail voting in corporate shareholder meetings. That shares are allocated to an entity can be verified. That notification was sent to the most current contact information can be verified. Whether or not a vote was received can be verified. It isn't always possible to know if the notice was received by an entity or if a vote was sent but not received. If a shareholder dies, the shares are still allocated to that entity and therefore still a registered shareholder. It may take time (sometimes a very long time) for someone to act on behalf of the dead; sometimes never. There might never be a contact update. If the shares are never recovered or cancelled, the shareholder still exists even if dead. Perhaps IP space should be recovered just to clear up the member list, even if there isn't much value in the actual IP space recovered. Especially if quorum is necessary. Mel Stotyn Senior Operations Specialist ENMAX Envision Inc. mailto:mstotyn at enmax.com Phone: 403 514-3443 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bob Roswell Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:03 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute We have a possible legal issue and a much bigger practical issue. An organization like ARIN is seriously compromised when the officers are not supported by the vast majority of the members. It seems to me that the officers elected in the disputed election should be ladies and gentleman and should resign for the benefit of the organization they represent. Then we should take a new vote. Prior non-participants (like me) will probably vote this time. Bob Roswell System Source broswell at syssrc.com (410) 771-5544 ext 4336 ************************************************************************ This e-mail message is intended only for the person(s) named above and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the person named or have not been authorized by them to access their mail, please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, saving, or forwarding. ************************************************************************ From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 15:48:09 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:48:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <9998.1202239190@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Paul Vixie wrote: > > Let's also note: "accused of" and "Temporary Restraining Order". Anyone > > can be accused of anything. Accusation does not translate to guilt. > > agreed. "Guilt" is not the topic for which this case is cited. This fact is cited as it indicates character and ethics. > > And whatever happened with the TRO, anyhow? Was a permanent injunction > > ever granted? > > no. MAPS agreed not to block Exactis. No injunction was necessary, as Exactis agreed. > > Was there ever admission of guilt? > > no. "Guilt" is a matter of a criminal court. Civil courts redress wrongs by requiring performance or money. > > Did a court provide a ruling? > > no. A TRO is a citable court ruling, and can be cited in other cases. But the case itself was dismissed upon mutual agreement of the parties, without prejudice, meaning it can come back if conditions change. > > A TRO is _not_ proof of wrongoing. > > agreed. Agreed. The TRO is proof of sufficient facts so that the plaintiff can prevail. The facts of the TRO are cited here as indications of character and ethics, which is indeed different from legal wrongdoing. However, the character and ethics of ARIN Board Members is relevant. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 15:49:56 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 15:49:56 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Exactis v. MAPS (Colorado District Court Case Number 00-CV-2250) cited charges of Tortious Interference with Contract, Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation and Extortion, violation of the Colorado Communications Privacy Act, violation of the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the Colorado Antitrust act --Dean On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > The Exactis V. MAPS case was indeed an organized crime case. > > > The facts I cited are true. > > Not according to this copy of the court motion > http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html > > In that document, the claim of organized crime does not > appear in the Statement of Facts (section II) but in the > Legal Argument (section III). > > According to this record > http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis.html > the lawsuit with its claim of organized crime, did > not succeed, as Exactis claimed it would in their > injunction request. Instead, the case was dismissed. > > Half truths and innuendo are not facts. > > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From paul at vix.com Tue Feb 5 15:54:52 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:54:52 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:06:37 CST." <18A9DD053D1E4297909C15F8D068FAE4@hc> References: <47A89DBC.7050008@Iplink.net> <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> <18A9DD053D1E4297909C15F8D068FAE4@hc> Message-ID: <14845.1202244892@sa.vix.com> > The company I work for is an ARIN member. I personaly would like to see an > email sent to the lists before a vote is called with details of what the > vote is about. I think this would be more usefull that having to check the > website for upcoming information. all known member contacts receive four e-mail messages about the election, starting well before the election itself. if you're not getting such e-mail then you should immediately contact member services to find out if they've got your e-mail address listed as one of your employer's ARIN contacts. From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Feb 5 16:02:31 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:02:31 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316035549A8@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> References: <47A89DBC.7050 008@Iplink.net> <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> <17838240D9A5544AAA5FF95F8D520316035549A8@ad-exh01.adhost.lan> Message-ID: Mike - Thanks for the concrete suggestions on changes to the trustee election process. If anyone else has specific suggestions, please post them succinctly. We will, as previously noted, have a discussion with on- site and remote participation of the election process and suggested changes. /John >Hello Paul (et. al.) > >I think the present email announcements and availability of candidate bios on the website prior to voting is "sufficient" but perhaps a few augmentations may help if they are not cost-prohibitive. > >1) Town Hall Meeting - right now the candidates for some of the positions have time allotted at the appropriate ARIN meeting, but there are many who don't/can't attend. Perhaps adding a web-interactive component would give everyone a chance to participate. This does speak to a larger question of web-casting the meeting for voting on all issues as well, but that's probably beyond the scope of your question. >2) Speaking to Ted's response - perhaps a list-developed set of hot button issues that are presented to the candidates and to which all responses are posted to the list. > Question 1: do you still beat your wife? > Contestant 1 Answer: > Contestant 2 Answer: > Question 2: > >and so on. >5) Specific modification to bylaws indicating non-participation equates to abstention. I think the due diligence of notifying members multiple times plus making the candidates info available on the web is sufficient for this purpose. IANAL of course. > >Regards, > >Mike Smith >Adhost Internet, LLC. From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Feb 5 16:11:46 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:11:46 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] proposal: cloture procedures In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Eddy - If you submit this to the ARIN consultation and suggestion process , then it will be considered independently. In any case, in light of numerous posts about maintaining effective communications on the mailing lists, we will also add the general topic of mailing list decorum to the ARIN Denver Meeting for discussion. /John At 2:49 PM +0000 2/5/08, Edward B. DREGER wrote: > >[ apologies if this is better suited to PPML ] > >I move that ARIN lists would benefit from cloture procedures. Proposal: > >===== > >1. Any member may request a thread-kill vote: > > a. via a user-authenticated section on ARIN's website; > > b. once within a 30-day moving window; > > c. for a thread discussed on any list to which s/he is > subscribed, without regard to posting priviliges or > participation level. > >2. Upon request per (1): > > a. a thread-kill announcement shall be sent to the list; > > b. the "time of announcement" shall be the time that ARIN MXes > finished conversation with the last-contacted subscriber MX, > without regard to 2xx/4xx/5xx/other status. > >3. Votes must be cast within 48 hours of (2). > >4. A two-thirds majority of the votes cast via (3) shall be required to >kill a thread. > >5. In the event that two-thirds of list subscribers vote in favor of >killing a thread before deadline (3), the thread shall be killed >immediately. > >===== > >Note that the required majority should be high: Individuals not >interested in a discussion or poster can use client-side filtering rules >on a spot basis. Cloture should be reserved for clear-cut cases where >it would benefit more than a simple majority. > >I feel that this would benefit all subscribers. Those wishing to stop a >discussion would have a means to do so -- iff backed by sufficient like >minds. Those wishing to continue a discussion would have a manifest to >do so were sufficient votes not cast. > >Then we can quit arguing about whether we should quit arguing. :-) > >Eddy From dlw+arin at tellme.com Tue Feb 5 16:13:19 2008 From: dlw+arin at tellme.com (David Williamson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:13:19 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> References: <47A89DBC.7050008@Iplink.net> <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <20080205211319.GQ522@shell01.cell.sv2.tellme.com> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 07:44:20PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote: > is there any way ARIN can augment or restructure the election process to give > you more information about the candidates and issues, and lower the apparent > bar to your informed participation? There is a lot of information available about candidates on the ARIN website, but it is a bit scattered. THe main election web page has candidate statements and statements of support, which is very useful if you know or know of the candidates or the folks making the statemens of support. Other resources exist, but are a bit harder to find: candidates physically at a member meeting have the opportunity to make a statement. That goes into the meeting minutes and the recordings. Perhaps those could be linked directly to the election pages, too. I think my only specific suggestion is to work to pull all of the relevant materials together onto a single page per set of candidates. It may also be useful to provide some guidance to candidates about the types of statements they can make that may help elucidate their positions to the membership, but I'm less convinced that there is value in such guidelines. Finally, I'll note that anyone interested in participation, but feeling like they lack sufficient data to make a decision, should be encouraged to ask questions on the arin-discuss mailing list in the period leading up to the election. Oh, and people can always use the search engine of their choice to find out more. The information is all out there - it's mostly a matter of *actively* participating in the process. -David From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Feb 5 16:16:02 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:16:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <008301c86814$7a196b60$6e4c4220$@net><5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F0102 5304@exchange00.semaphore.lan> <017c01c8681f$74e097d0$0401a8c0@portablenb> Message-ID: David - If you submit this to the ARIN consultation and suggestion process , then it will be considered independently. In any case, in light of numerous posts about maintaining effective communications on the mailing lists, we will also add the general topic of mailing lists and/or forums to the ARIN Denver Meeting for discussion. /John At 1:01 PM -0500 2/5/08, Divins, David wrote: >From: "Divins, David" >To: >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance >X-BeenThere: arin-discuss at arin.net > >This might be a good time to discuss the possibility of Migrating from >Mail lists to Web Forums. It would allow threads as these to live only >to those interested, yet cause no concern for stifling free discussion. > >Thoughts? > >-dsd > >David Divins >Principal Engineer >ServerVault Corp. >(703) 652-5955 From todd-arin at renesys.com Tue Feb 5 16:26:47 2008 From: todd-arin at renesys.com (Todd Underwood) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:26:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0CE@MAIL04.enmax.com> References: <15BDDC14871D2A49BFCEEEF409EB298305127702@exchange.SYSSRCAD.SYSSRC.com> <2A6EBA7B37001A46BD4DB830398EC81B09E0CE@MAIL04.enmax.com> Message-ID: <20080205212647.GD6212@renesys.com> mel, all, On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:43:37PM -0700, Stotyn, Mel wrote: > > I think we need resolution of whether a quorum is necessary. I don't > think that there is agreement yet. If Dean's lawyer talks to ARIN's > lawyer, perhaps we will then know. arin, in the form of curran, already offered a resolution to this issue: no. this answer was arrived by arin management asking arin counsel for an opinion on the issues that anderson raised. we're done. if you disagree, then re-raise the issue with management with a different set of facts. or if you don't like that, please file a claim in the appropriate court of law. can we talk about anything else now. please? t. -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd at renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog From paul at vix.com Tue Feb 5 16:44:11 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 21:44:11 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:07:57 PST." References: Message-ID: <17002.1202247851@sa.vix.com> "Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote: > Paul I'll respond to this for myself. > ... > For example, you were just elected. What is YOUR position on IPv6? I > don't really know. the board's statement on ipv6 was made while i was a trustee here, and even if i hadn't joined the majority for that decision, i don't know if i'd feel right speaking against the statement. . > Do you see why I don't feel competent to vote for or against you? would this be like promising two chickens in every pot, or would this be like a litmus test for judicial appointments? if either, then i'd be against it. for myself, what i need to know about a candidate is whether they have insight and highly principled flexibility and industry experience and fiduciary experience and maybe even some creativity and wisdom and certainly an ability to work with difficult people or under difficult conditions. i can't think of a way to learn these things from somebody's online bio or some litmus tests. that having been said, i would love it if we had debates rather than just candidate statements. maybe a webinar with call-in by voice and jabber. but would that increase participation among potential voters? if not, what would? From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Feb 5 16:44:34 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:44:34 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: >ARIN: How about an "arin-oversight at arin.net" mailing list dedicated to >this sort of talk? I'm concerned that this endless discussion is >alienating people who otherwise may be inclined to provide valuable >insight and opinions dealing with ARIN operations. Eddy - That can be done, if indeed desired by the community. The "arin-discuss" list presently incorporates these topics, and we would need to be certain that any division of the list was initially inclusive all all current participants. Also, note that there will likely be some messages (such as announcement of petition matters, and the like) that have openness and transparency requirements that may still require posting to arin-discuss (and other lists) even in the presence of a specific "arin-oversight" list. Having noted such, if you submit this suggestion to the ARIN consultation and suggestion process , then it will be considered independently. In any case, in light of numerous posts about maintaining effective communications on the mailing lists, we will also add this suggestion to general topic of mailing lists decorum to the ARIN Denver Meeting for discussion. /John From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Feb 5 17:03:20 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:03:20 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:07 PM -0800 2/5/08, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >The second thing I look for is what the cadidate's opinions or >position on "the controversial issues" is. This here is where I think >the problem is. Ted - Thanks for message; there are indeed two common practices that some other organizations use during elections to improve understanding of the candidates: 1) Written Statements from Candidates, and 2) Candidates positions on a specified list of topics which is selected by the election/nomination committee. Either of these is a possible consideration to be added to the election process. One thought to be considered is that the roles of the ARIN AC and ARIN Board mean that many of the questions that might be popular (e.g. supporting IPv6 promotion, tightening IPv4 policies) might actually more relevant to the Advisory Council, where you have a group of folks who actively guide the policy proposal process, as opposed to the ARIN Board, where views on ARIN fiscal policy, outreach, and services to the legacy community are potentially most relevant. In any case, thanks for the excellent thoughts. I'm not going to repeat myself verbatim for the fourth time today, but will note that you can make a specific suggestion to the ACSP. In any case, we'll bring up the "candidate view" requirement in the session at the Denver meeting. /John From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Feb 5 19:13:49 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:13:49 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <17002.1202247851@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Paul Vixie >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:44 PM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting > > >"Ted Mittelstaedt" wrote: >> Paul I'll respond to this for myself. >> ... >> For example, you were just elected. What is YOUR position on IPv6? I >> don't really know. > >the board's statement on ipv6 was made while i was a trustee here, >and even if >i hadn't joined the majority for that decision, i don't know if >i'd feel right >speaking against the statement. >. > Paul, that statement is one of the most bland watered down meaningless statements that could be made. How could you possibly be against it? Or for it? It requires and mandates NOTHING specific or concrete. Boiled down it says in effect IPv6 is a good thing and you all ought to move to it. In any case, it ignores the various "IPv4 buying and selling on a free market" proposals, and many other controversal aspects of IPv6 migration, it says nothing about whether RETURNED IPv4 will be re-allocated back out, and so on and so on. In short, it is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, it simply restates what we all already know. And if you actually have a problem with the statement personally, then I wouldn't want to elect you if you were not willing to speak your mind. An honorable board member who had concerns about an issue and disagreed with the majorities decision would not hesitate for a second to speak it publically. It is very possible to be opposed to something but still implement it. For example, I think male anti-abortionists are sick human beings, advocating for something that they have no business talking about, but I'll defend to the death their right to advocate it. There are many US soldiers who think the Iraq war is wrong but they still put on their guns every morning and go out and fight. When the US Supreme Court makes a decision the minority justices are very vocal in why they think the majority is wrong. However, if subsequent to this, someone uses the court's decision as precedent, the Supreme Sourt justices that disagree with the earlier decision will still consider the precedent as valid. If your not comfortable in the role of disagreeing with something yet still being a part of implementing it, then you frankly do not have the right stuff to be on the board. >> Do you see why I >don't feel competent to vote for or against you? > >would this be like promising two chickens in every pot, or would >this be like >a litmus test for judicial appointments? if either, then i'd be >against it. > No, it would be like simply saying your mind. As far as someone using one of your positions as a litmus test - well that's happening now, with the noise that Dean is making, so I fail to see what real difference there is. You need to put your positions out there on the controversal issues and assume that everyone voting will consider your entire list of positions. For example, I may deplore your wishy-washy position on IPv6 and prefer someone more agressive about implementing it - but on the other hand, I hate spammers and even people using the CAN-SPAM act to hide behind the law and still spam anyway, so I love your position on shutting down spammers, I espically love that Dean hates you since I am operating from the aspect of anyone who even makes the slightest effort to support bulk e-mail, whether it's legal spam or not, is my enemy, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. So, I have at least 2 litmus tests here, you might say, and I think a lot of people are like this - they have a lot of things they want to see get done, and they will go for the person that is as close to their list as they can get - but they realize they can't have everything. >for myself, what i need to know about a candidate is whether they >have insight >and highly principled flexibility and industry experience and fiduciary >experience and maybe even some creativity and wisdom and certainly >an ability >to work with difficult people or under difficult conditions. i >can't think of >a way to learn these things from somebody's online bio or some >litmus tests. > Name one candidate presented who DIDN'T have these qualifications. I think every one of them did. You need to trust the membership more. If someone actually ran who was an idiot who had no experience who couldn't work with anyone, the membership would definitely get the word out and they wouldn't be elected. >that having been said, i would love it if we had debates rather than just >candidate statements. maybe a webinar with call-in by voice and >jabber. but >would that increase participation among potential voters? if not, >what would? > It will only increase participation if something controversial is in the mix. Controversy attracts people. If every candidate comes off all agreeing with each other, then nobody will be interested. It boils down to what each candidate's views are. ARIN has a future, what is that future going to be? There are many paths that can be taken. Whoever is elected will be guiding ARIN down one of those paths. If every single candidate and every single ARIN member all agrees what path there is to be taken, then is there really any point to having an election? Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Feb 5 19:23:56 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:23:56 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:03 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting > > >At 12:07 PM -0800 2/5/08, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >>The second thing I look for is what the cadidate's opinions or >>position on "the controversial issues" is. This here is where I think >>the problem is. > >Ted - > > Thanks for message; there are indeed two common practices > that some other organizations use during elections to improve > understanding of the candidates: 1) Written Statements from > Candidates, and 2) Candidates positions on a specified list of topics > which is selected by the election/nomination committee. Either > of these is a possible consideration to be added to the election > process. > > One thought to be considered is that the roles of the ARIN AC > and ARIN Board mean that many of the questions that might > be popular (e.g. supporting IPv6 promotion, tightening IPv4 > policies) might actually more relevant to the Advisory Council, > where you have a group of folks who actively guide the policy > proposal process, as opposed to the ARIN Board, where views > on ARIN fiscal policy, outreach, and services to the legacy > community are potentially most relevant. > I used the IPv6 thing as an immediately recognizable hot button, no more than that. Although there is of course some overlap - as fee structure can be setup to encourage IPv6 uptake - as the board has already figured out. > In any case, thanks for the excellent thoughts. I'm not going to > repeat myself verbatim for the fourth time today, but will note > that you can make a specific suggestion to the ACSP. I'm one of the "mostly content with how the board runs things" people so I have to agree with the "I don't pay enough attention to the candidates to have an informed vote" camp. I actually like the fact that a smaller number of self-selected informed people cast the votes, rather than a much larger number of ignorant people. We have the latter in the national US elections and it's pretty apparent that hasn't been a steller method of getting good presidents. Ted From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 19:31:48 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 19:31:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: <20080205212647.GD6212@renesys.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Todd Underwood wrote: > mel, all, > > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 01:43:37PM -0700, Stotyn, Mel wrote: > > > > I think we need resolution of whether a quorum is necessary. I don't > > think that there is agreement yet. If Dean's lawyer talks to ARIN's > > lawyer, perhaps we will then know. > > arin, in the form of curran, already offered a resolution to this > issue: > > no. As Curran is only a Board Member, he has no authority to impose such resolution. In fact, as I read it, Curran has proposed having the membership vote on the subject at the next member meeting. I'll have some bylaw changes for that meeting, as well. As the 2006 election cites only 173 votes, and I don't think the membership has changed much between 2007 and 2006, it seeems that Scott Bradner and John Curran are also subject to the no-quorum issue. > this answer was arrived by arin management asking arin counsel for an > opinion on the issues that anderson raised. We still don't know the name of that attorney. Nor do we know actually, if there ever was an attorney. I don't think anyone can take the assurances of a conflicted Board Member about the opinion of an anonymous attorney. > we're done. I don't think we're done. > if you disagree, then re-raise the issue with management with a > different set of facts. or if you don't like that, please file a > claim in the appropriate court of law. > > can we talk about anything else now. please? You can talk about anything you like. No one is stopping you. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From tedm at ipinc.net Tue Feb 5 19:41:32 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 16:41:32 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Dean Anderson >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 4:32 PM >To: Todd Underwood >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute > > >We still don't know the name of that attorney. This is a bald-faced lie. To repeat John's message yesterday: "...Feel free to contact (McDermott Will & Emery LLP) them for details or Mr. Steve Ryan of said firm if you need a single name...." Dean, you claimed once you got the name of the lawyer, you would have your lawyer call him with a conference call. You have been given it twice now. Either carry out what you said you would do, or kindly shut up. Ted From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Feb 5 20:13:09 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:13:09 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 7:31 PM -0500 2/5/08, Dean Anderson wrote: >As Curran is only a Board Member, he has no authority to impose such >resolution. In fact, as I read it, Curran has proposed having the >membership vote on the subject at the next member meeting. I'll have >some bylaw changes for that meeting, as well. Thank you for bringing forth your specific concerns, as germane suggestions for improvement to our processes are always welcome. As far as ARIN is concerned, our trustee election processes have been reviewed with counsel and have been found to be both democratic and conducted in accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Virginia law. And to be clear, I have suggested that the community discuss multiple election topics at the upcoming meeting in order to gain understanding into any possible improvements. /John From oscicluna at team.look.ca Tue Feb 5 20:19:06 2008 From: oscicluna at team.look.ca (Owen Scicluna) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:19:06 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <008301c86814$7a196b60$6e4c4220$@net><5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025304@exchange00.semaphore.lan> Message-ID: <2BB116330062AF4EBB9BF4AC3C06F0D82312B9@CORPEX.lookqc.look.ca> I am also in full agreement with Scott. Regards, Owen Scicluna Director of Engineering & operations Look Communications Inc. [Internet+TV] -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Scott.Shackelford at cox.com Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:39 PM To: GarthB at semaphore.com; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance Seriously, can this be moved to another (created) thread or list? Really...can someone at ARIN sanction that to happen or do we all have to suffer? Let the people that want to be involved stay involved in another 'place', but those of us that don't; let us out please. My inbox is already maxed out and I can barely keep up with my delete button. /Scott -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Garth Brown Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 12:32 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations then there are many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling votes from within the ARIN constituency for change in the board (either at-term or mid-term) are another. Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such legitimate avenue to actually remediate his claims of problems. I do not believe that this forum is one where ARIN board members are required to respond to any or every accusation within a prompt timeframe. Or at all, for that matter. This is a discussion forum and not a tribunal of accountability. John and others from the board have responded within reasonable timeframes to reasonable questions - and the matter will apparently be discussed in the appropriate forum for such matters (the actual physical meeting). This would also be the appropriate forum for Dean's issues. Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over? You certainly have been asked on many occasions. Why no suit or petition? I strongly support your right to take a legal or electoral action if you have proof of malfeasance. I do not support your continued rhetoric without such action. Finally, your possession of a well-worn legal dictionary no more makes you an attorney that does my mother's possession of a copy of Newton's Telecom Dictionary make her an network engineer. Though I'm glad she has it as a reference, I wouldn't let her touch my routers. Garth Brown _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From paul at vix.com Tue Feb 5 20:36:18 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:36:18 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:13:49 PST." References: Message-ID: <28369.1202261778@sa.vix.com> > >. > > Paul, that statement is one of the most bland watered down meaningless > statements that could be made. How could you possibly be against it? Or > for it? It requires and mandates NOTHING specific or concrete. i don't agree. perhaps it wasn't news to you, but it was the first official statement by ARIN that IPv4 won't last forever, and that at some point in the future, any network that wants to keep growing, will have to adopt IPv6. you might think that's noncontroversial but a lot of folks seem to think that with some kind of trading market, and a lot of NAT, and a lot of other tricks, the internet can keep growing the number of connected+reachable devices without end. > Boiled down it says in effect IPv6 is a good thing and you all ought to move > to it. > > In any case, it ignores the various "IPv4 buying and selling on a free > market" proposals, and many other controversal aspects of IPv6 migration, it > says nothing about whether RETURNED IPv4 will be re-allocated back out, and > so on and so on. In short, it is a perfect example of what I'm talking > about, it simply restates what we all already know. you're underrating yourself. a lot of people told me in response to that announcement that they thought ARIN's board had overstated the case for IPv6, and/or that IPv6 was only one possible way forward, or that IPv6 was doomed, or similar. just because you already knew what that announcement said, don't assume that ARIN's wider community of interest knew it at the time. > And if you actually have a problem with the statement personally, then I > wouldn't want to elect you if you were not willing to speak your mind. > > An honorable board member who had concerns about an issue and disagreed with > the majorities decision would not hesitate for a second to speak it > publically. It is very possible to be opposed to something but still > implement it. ... i think that if there had been serious, strong, principled dissent, that would have been reflected in the absence of a board statement on the topic, rather than a board statement followed by public dissent by individual trustees. > If your not comfortable in the role of disagreeing with something yet still > being a part of implementing it, then you frankly do not have the right > stuff to be on the board. i implement stuff all the time that i don't agree with. at home, at ISC, in the IETF, in my kids' PTA meetings, and on various boards. my only insistence is that all views be heard and that democracy is obtained. but this goes far afield of the question, is public dissent a duty if consensus wasn't smooth. > You need to put your positions out there on the controversal issues and > assume that everyone voting will consider your entire list of positions. > For example, I may deplore your wishy-washy position on IPv6 and prefer > someone more agressive about implementing it - yow. so you didn't know i implemented IPv6 features in BIND8 back in 1996, years before there was a network to run it on? or that i've pushed for IPv6 connectivity for root name servers for at least the last five years, and that f-root has been answering on IPv6 for years even though it took until yesterday for ICANN to add AAAA RRs to the root-servers.net zone and root glue? perhaps i have simply been too quiet, if you call it wishy-washy. i thought was merely laconic or acerbic, but perhaps i merely came across as a hater? i was also the creator of the inet_ntop() and inet_pton() API, which i then offered to the IETF during the preparation of RFC 2133. do i really seem like i'm personally uncommitted to the success of IPv6? or merely that i see ARIN's role in the success of IPv6 as being separate from my own role? > So, I have at least 2 litmus tests here, you might say, and I think a lot of > people are like this - they have a lot of things they want to see get done, > and they will go for the person that is as close to their list as they can > get - but they realize they can't have everything. sounds like you'd be in favour of webinar-style debates, with audience questions in real time, for future ARIN elections? > It will only increase participation if something controversial is in the > mix. Controversy attracts people. If every candidate comes off all > agreeing with each other, then nobody will be interested. so, the debates should be in the style of a geraldo rivera show? :-) > It boils down to what each candidate's views are. ARIN has a future, what > is that future going to be? There are many paths that can be taken. > Whoever is elected will be guiding ARIN down one of those paths. If every > single candidate and every single ARIN member all agrees what path there is > to be taken, then is there really any point to having an election? well, yes, there is. a couple such points, including the need to elect folks who can properly (in the eyes of the membership) handle issues that come up that are too new and unpredictable to have been litmus tests in the previous election. (note, this is also true of meatspace politics, and it's why everybody always says that what matters is character, not litmus tests.) From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 20:43:50 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:43:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > "...Feel free to contact (McDermott Will & Emery LLP) > them for details or Mr. Steve Ryan of said firm if you need a > single name...." > > Dean, you claimed once you got the name of the lawyer, you > would have your lawyer call him with a conference call. You > have been given it twice now. Either carry out what you said > you would do, or kindly shut up. Curran doesn't say Steve Ryan is the name of the attorney. Curran says I should ask the Law Firm or Ryan for the name. When Curran says "Attorney So-and-so wrote the opinion I posted", then we have a name. Until then, we have obfuscation and frivolousness that is inconsistent with the role of Board Member. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From jcurran at istaff.org Tue Feb 5 20:53:27 2008 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:53:27 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 8:43 PM -0500 2/5/08, Dean Anderson wrote: >Curran doesn't say Steve Ryan is the name of the attorney. Curran says I >should ask the Law Firm or Ryan for the name. > >When Curran says "Attorney So-and-so wrote the opinion I posted", then >we have a name. Until then, we have obfuscation and frivolousness that >is inconsistent with the role of Board Member. My apologies for any confusion that this matter has caused you. I wrote the statement that was posted. I wrote it after looking into the matter, and upon reading materials prepared by Steve Ryan and other members of his firm, who are retained as counsel to ARIN and whose guidance is subject to privilege. I refer to Steve Ryan for any additional detail you require, for obvious reasons. /John From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 21:07:55 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:07:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > As far as ARIN is concerned, our trustee election processes have been > reviewed with counsel and have been found to be both democratic and > conducted in accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Virginia law. Still waiting for the name of that attorney. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From ml at t-b-o-h.net Tue Feb 5 21:20:53 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:20:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802060220.m162Kr31041197@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > > > As far as ARIN is concerned, our trustee election processes have been > > reviewed with counsel and have been found to be both democratic and > > conducted in accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Virginia law. > > Still waiting for the name of that attorney. > I think he's actually said it twice so far. Tuc/TBOH From dean at av8.com Tue Feb 5 22:02:47 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 22:02:47 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Suggestion to resolve the ARIN dispute In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, John Curran wrote: > At 8:43 PM -0500 2/5/08, Dean Anderson wrote: > >Curran doesn't say Steve Ryan is the name of the attorney. Curran says I > >should ask the Law Firm or Ryan for the name. > > > >When Curran says "Attorney So-and-so wrote the opinion I posted", then > >we have a name. Until then, we have obfuscation and frivolousness that > >is inconsistent with the role of Board Member. > > My apologies for any confusion that this matter has caused you. > > I wrote the statement that was posted. I wrote it after looking into the > matter, and upon reading materials prepared by Steve Ryan and other > members of his firm, who are retained as counsel to ARIN and whose > guidance is subject to privilege. I refer to Steve Ryan for any additional > detail you require, for obvious reasons. I acknowledge your identification of Steve Ryan as the attorney who prepared your statement in http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2008-February/000775.html I'll schedule a conference with my attorney and with ARIN and ARIN's attorney(s) to review the matter. Thank you, --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From paul at vix.com Tue Feb 5 23:37:59 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:37:59 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:43:53 GMT." <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> Message-ID: <37399.1202272679@sa.vix.com> > > It would seem to me if Dean was spaming us all with a "bunch of lies", > > this issue would already have been addressed with the truth and the > > discussion would be over. I guess the question I > > it has been. dozens and dozens of times of the years. dean is playing the > neo-con playbook: just repeat the same lies and wait until peopel get tired > of correcting them. about once a year i make a point of re-rejecting mr. anderson's various claims about my alleged organized crime background, just in case someone new to the situation concludes that mr. anderson's unsubstantiated claims against me must be true if nobody's bothering to dispute them. this year it was january, and occurred on both this mailing list: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2008-January/000721.html http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2008-January/000729.html http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-discuss/2008-January/000730.html ...and on namedroppers at ops.ietf.org: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg00131.html ...noting that mr. anderson's posting privileges to namedroppers at ops.ietf.org were suspended within a few days of msg00131.html, thus the thread ends there. those of you interested in mr. anderson's various allegations can also look at and for background. From alvin at Iplink.net Tue Feb 5 23:58:49 2008 From: alvin at Iplink.net (Alvin Starr) Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:58:49 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <37399.1202272679@sa.vix.com> References: <20080205144353.GU16313@renesys.com> <37399.1202272679@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <47A93E89.2070603@Iplink.net> Wow. What did you do to piss Dean off? Did you steal his wife or girlfriend/boyfriend? Paul Vixie wrote: >>> It would seem to me if Dean was spaming us all with a "bunch of lies", >>> this issue would already have been addressed with the truth and the >>> discussion would be over. I guess the question I >>> >> it has been. dozens and dozens of times of the years. dean is playing the >> neo-con playbook: just repeat the same lies and wait until peopel get tired >> of correcting them. >> > > about once a year i make a point of re-rejecting mr. anderson's various claims > about my alleged organized crime background, just in case someone new to the > situation concludes that mr. anderson's unsubstantiated claims against me must > be true if nobody's bothering to dispute them. this year it was january, and > occurred on both this mailing list: > > [snip] -- Alvin Starr || voice: (416)585-9971 Interlink Connectivity || fax: (416)585-9974 alvin at iplink.net || From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Wed Feb 6 00:15:01 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 05:15:01 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <28369.1202261778@sa.vix.com> version=2.63-arin1 References: <28369.1202261778@sa.vix.com> version=2.63-arin1 Message-ID: PV> Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 01:36:18 +0000 PV> From: Paul Vixie PV> so, the debates should be in the style of a geraldo rivera show? PV> :-) They might be more akin to Jerry Springer, if the mailing list threads are any indication. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From GarthB at semaphore.com Wed Feb 6 00:53:18 2008 From: GarthB at semaphore.com (Garth Brown) Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 21:53:18 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F0102531A@exchange00.semaphore.lan> References: <5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F0102531A@exchange00.semaphore.lan> Message-ID: <5A4BAB09C68AAA48B8855A5EAAA07E5F01025334@exchange00.semaphore.lan> Dean, For someone who holds others to such high standards of punctual and semantic precision in their responses, it surprises me that you still have still not responded to the core question I posed: "why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over?" If you intend to be credible, advances in your actions would seem important. To mire oneself in constant rhetoric without ever advancing one's cause isn't productive - it's merely being bitter. What are your constructive plans? How do you intend to use the system you're claiming to protect to resolve the problems you're asserting exist? Garth Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: Garth Brown > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:43 AM > To: 'Dean Anderson' > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance > > Dean, > > You have still not responded to my core question. > > Specifically: "why is it that you have not responded to any > of the people on this forum who have politely requested that > you take up a specific and valid action to make change, > rather than espouse the same rhetoric over and over?" > > I believe people are trying to tell you that your tactics > have ceased to be effective. Without credible follow-through > they amount to a witch hunt. Work within the system defined > by the organization you assert you are protecting. > > Please answer my core question. > > Garth Brown > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dean Anderson [mailto:dean at av8.com] > > > > On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Garth Brown wrote: > > > > > If Dean truly has factual support for his allegations > then there are > > > many avenues open to him. The courts are one, assembling > votes from > > > within the ARIN constituency for change in the board > (either at-term > > > or mid-term) are another. > > > > > > Dean has to date elected not to pursue any such > legitimate avenue to > > > actually remediate his claims of problems. > > > > Investigation and discussion with ARIN members is one > > legitimate avenue. > > This is the forum for that investigation and discussion. > > > > > Dean, if you expect the board to answer so quickly and precisely, > > > > Several months does not seem to be too quick to respond. > > > > > why is it that you have not responded to any of the people on this > > > forum who have politely requested that you take up a specific and > > > valid action to make change, rather than espouse the same rhetoric > > > over and over? You certainly have been asked on many > occasions. Why > > > no suit or petition? > > > > Investigation and discussion precedes both suit and petition. > > > > --Dean > From dean at av8.com Wed Feb 6 02:08:34 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 02:08:34 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <47A93E89.2070603@Iplink.net> Message-ID: I think I have to take a detour to address the improper attacks on my reputation. On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Alvin Starr wrote: > Wow. > What did you do to piss Dean off? > Did you steal his wife or girlfriend/boyfriend? Its what I did to piss them off. In 1998 I told NANOG that laws (specifically the ECPA) applied to ISPs. They were so angry about this that they threatened to find me in an alley if I attended a meeting. This threat is a violation of the Hobbs Act. In 1999, Chris Neill made claims on NANOG that it is OK to abuse open relays. I tell him it is not OK and that there is a law (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) that prohibits that. Neill proceeds to abuse AV8 relays. Chris Neill is later fired over this and investigated by the FBI [http://www.iadl.org/cn/cn-story.html] Later, another discussion was opened about internet crimes committed from another country. NANOG people belittled this notion and bashed me repeatedly. On January 13th, 2000, coindentally, there is a current news story where a russian hacker penetrated a US web site and stole credit cards. He was arrested, thereby proving Anderson's assertion that people can be held responsible for crimes committed over the internet in another country. I was essentially vindicated, which made the NANOG people really, REALLY angry. So Harris banned me from NANOG. Internet Law is a topic of NANOG, and NANOG has had a seminar on law. Then in 2000-2002 I helped Dr. Dan Bernstein fight the AXFR-clarify scam on the IETF DNSEXT Working Group list. This message summarized that pretty well: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg00093.html These are Dr. Bernstein's pages http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html In 2002 I encountered J. Alif Terranson working at Savvis. Terranson had some misrepresentations about open relays. I won, Savvis paid my legal fees. http://www.iadl.org/JATerranson/JATerranson-story.html This really pissed off some people. So in 2002 MAPS became "for-profit", and SORBS was founded. By Spring 2003, SORBS was claiming that netblocks used by AV8 Internet were hijacked. Vixie was providing services to SORBS. See http://www.iadl.org/sorbs/sorbs-story.html and http://www.iadl.org/maps/maps-story.html In 2005, I complained to the IETF that a "spamops" document being promoted by Dave Crocker and John Levine (Vixie associate on Whitehat Board) contained false claims about that were identified as originating from Mathew Sullivan of SORBS. I objected on the basis of the false statements in the draft, and the association of Sullivan to the false claims about netblocks used by AV8 Internet. This made some people really angry. Also, in 2005, I complained that the IETF DNSEXT Working Group wasn't complying with RFC3979 regarding the disclosure of software patents, and the discussion of non-patented alternatives. This made some people angry. Steven Bellovin, using his authority as the IPR Working Group Chair, stated falsely that RFC3979 wasn't the policy of the IETF. [Bellovin was a NANOG'r who had previously told network operators that the ECPA didn't apply to ISPs. See http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/People/StevenBellovin/index.html] And also between 2002 and 2005, I opposed the use of Anycast in Root DNS Servers. In 2005, considerble evidence came to light showing that this practice was not stable for stateful services (TCP). [Anycast is the process of giving several computers the same IP Address. It is described in RFC1546, which also states Anycast is unsuitable for stateful services. (eg TCP). This really REALLY pissed people off. Particularly Paul Vixie. So NANOG'r David Kessens (on the IESG), threatened to ban me if I didn't shut up about Anycast problems on the DNSOP Working Group. I complained about the threat to the IETF. Kessens carried out the threat, with the assistance of Susan Harris (NANOG) and Dave Crocker, and began a procedure to ban my posts. The IETF requires a "consensus" call. 15 people voted AGAINST the ban. Only 2 voted FOR the ban. This vote was then falsely reported as being FOR the ban. http://www.av8.net/IETF-watch/IESG/IESG-PR-discussion.html And so it continues. False, fictitious, and fraudulent statements are predicates acts for Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Two predicate acts constitute a pattern of racketeering activity. Disregard for the law is evidence of criminal intent. When non-profit organizations are involved, economic harm (in addition to profit) is allowed as an objective of a RICO enterprise. What's remarkable about these events is that NANOG is 184 core members. Their infiltration into IETF, ARIN, and ICANN is truly remarkable. -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From dean at av8.com Wed Feb 6 02:09:16 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 02:09:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <37399.1202272679@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: I have to take a detour to address these attacks on my reputation. Mr. Vixie's claims here are defamatory, libelous and are not privileged. On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Paul Vixie wrote: > about once a year i make a point of re-rejecting mr. anderson's > various claims about my alleged organized crime background, This consists of efforts to mislead people into believing the Exactis V. MAPS was dismissed for lack of merit. That is false. It was dismissed because MAPS and Vixie agreed to terms with Exactis: MAPS stopped blocking Exactis. > occurred on both this mailing list: > ...and on namedroppers at ops.ietf.org: > > http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg00131.html This is a good example. In this particular message noted above, Board Member Vixie makes false statements about the TRO. In fact, Vixie and MAPS tried very hard to get the case dismissed (two motions, both rejected) and made vigorous efforts against the TRO (also rejected) The subject that precipitated this is the AXFR-clarify scam, which can also be found here: http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/axfr-clarify.html http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/namedroppers.html > ...noting that mr. anderson's posting privileges to > namedroppers at ops.ietf.org were suspended within a few days of > msg00131.html, thus the thread ends there. In fact, my posting privileges were suspended in violation of the law, in violation of the IETF rules, and was based on fabrictated claims by NANOG affiliated persons, particularly persons closely affiliated with Mr. Vixie. This action will be the subject of litigation that is currently being prepared. The group that is attacking me at the IETF is the same NANOG-affiliated group that has infiltrated ARIN's Board of Directors. Namedroppers is the IETF DNSEXT Working Group Mailing List, operated by the Internet Society, Inc. The two topics being discussed on Namedroppers were appropriate to the management of the IETF DNSEXT Working Group Mailing List, and appropriate to the consulting role that IETF plays to IANA, which is a US Government function. My position was merely unfavorable to Mr. Vixie interests. Consider these were the _only_ messages I posted: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg00093.html http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg00125.html http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg00128.html http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg00130.html http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/namedroppers.2008/msg00145.html --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From todd-arin at renesys.com Wed Feb 6 07:14:01 2008 From: todd-arin at renesys.com (Todd Underwood) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:14:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <47A93E89.2070603@Iplink.net> Message-ID: <20080206121401.GI6212@renesys.com> the history starts and ends with the fact that mr. anderson thinks it's a good and right thing to run an open mail relay. still. he never joined the rest of us in 1997. he still lives in the early 90s where the people are good and the internet is open. oh, he also thinks that anycast (the system that provides resiliency to the global DNS system, and serves up content from some of the largest content providers in the world) won't work and is a scam. get your head around these positions and then decide what credibility any of his policy or technical proposals may have. on a concrete note: it's easy to imagine some kookiness slipping by during the AC or Board elections. one wonders if a technical test or statement or debate would not be useful to determine which candidates (like mr. vixie, for example) have a long history of technical competence and innovation and will clearly understand the technical background behind the policy governance issues, and which lack such clue and basic common sense. i'm not sure the best way to accomplish that. i like the idea of a web debate among candidates if it were feasible, with audience questions coming over irc/jabber. t. -- _____________________________________________________________________ todd underwood +1 603 643 9300 x101 renesys corporation general manager babbledog todd at renesys.com http://www.renesys.com/blog From dsd at servervault.com Wed Feb 6 09:35:41 2008 From: dsd at servervault.com (Divins, David) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:35:41 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: <37399.1202272679@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: Mr. Anderson, Based on many of your posts and your known position as a Legacy Holder who suggests not signing the ARIN RSA. I am left with a question: Are you an ARIN Member in Good Standing as defined by the ARIN (http://www.arin.net/membership/index.html)? Thank you, dsd David Divins Principal Engineer ServerVault Corp. (703) 652-5955 From dean at av8.com Wed Feb 6 09:58:49 2008 From: dean at av8.com (Dean Anderson) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:58:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <20080206121401.GI6212@renesys.com> Message-ID: Your message has nothing to do with ARIN business or ARIN corporate governance, and merely continues an attack on my reputation. I should probably not indulge you with a response, but these subjects are of concern to ISPs who make up a majority of the ARIN membership. On Wed, 6 Feb 2008, Todd Underwood wrote: > > > the history starts and ends with the fact that mr. anderson thinks > it's a good and right thing to run an open mail relay. In fact, I did win the argument (open relays are not anonymous and they do not enable spam), and the losers did pay my legal fees. Terranson was a NANOG'r, BTW. He was fired a while later over another spam issue, after disclosing all of Savvis's CAN-SPAM-compliant commercial bulk emailers to Spamhaus in violation of his NDA. In retrospect, I suppose Savvis wishes they had fired him in 2002. > still. he never joined the rest of us in 1997. he still lives in the > early 90s where the people are good and the internet is open. Well, I do know that people are definitely not good. Someone said that if the Board Members were ladies and gentlemen they would resign and run for re-election in the special meeting that must be called for that case. I can tell you from 12 years of experience with NANOG that they are not "ladies and gentlemen." On the other hand, I can also tell you that my 19 years as an organizer with the LPF (founded by Richard Stallman of GNU/Linux fame) has given me a perspective on how to fight these issues. I am a very patient person, and I've won just about all of the battles by patience and careful analysis. > oh, he also thinks that anycast (the system that provides resiliency > to the global DNS system, and serves up content from some of the > largest content providers in the world) won't work and is a scam. Vixie (who also sells Root Anycast services) and others who sell Root DNS Anycast Services _ASSERT_WITHOUT_PROOF_ that it provides resiliency and is stable while silencing dissent about why that isn't true. Anycast CAN indeed provide resiliency for STATELESS services, as RFC1546 states. But in fact, Anycast isn't stable for STATEFUL services, as RFC1546 ALSO states. It turns out the RFC1546 is exactly right. Getting the proof that stateful Anycast wasn't stable was hard, but I got it. Also, the content service (e.g. http) people use stateful load balancers. That isn't Anycast. Though I did meet an admin (NANOG'r) who thought an F5 LTM used Anycast because it "effectively gives several computers the same IP address". The F5 LTM doesn't use Anycast to do that. I don't know how these admin's get such wrong ideas. After we discussed the details of Anycast, and the specifications of the F5 LTM, he was convinced that the F5 LTM doesn't do Anycast. --Dean -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 From ml at t-b-o-h.net Wed Feb 6 10:18:16 2008 From: ml at t-b-o-h.net (Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:18:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200802061518.m16FIGW1052867@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> > > Mr. Anderson, > > Based on many of your posts and your known position as a Legacy Holder > who suggests not signing the ARIN RSA. I am left with a question: > > Are you an ARIN Member in Good Standing as defined by the ARIN > (http://www.arin.net/membership/index.html)? > > Thank you, > dsd > Hi, If he has an ASN dated 12-1998 (A year after ARINs creation), wouldn't it mean he was? (Provided his payment is current) Tuc/TBOH From dsd at servervault.com Wed Feb 6 10:21:04 2008 From: dsd at servervault.com (Divins, David) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:21:04 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <200802061518.m16FIGW1052867@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> References: <200802061518.m16FIGW1052867@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> Message-ID: I don't know, that is why I am asking Dean. Thanks, dsd David Divins Principal Engineer ServerVault Corp. (703) 652-5955 -----Original Message----- From: Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET [mailto:ml at t-b-o-h.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:18 AM To: Divins, David Cc: Dean Anderson; Paul Vixie; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance > > Mr. Anderson, > > Based on many of your posts and your known position as a Legacy Holder > who suggests not signing the ARIN RSA. I am left with a question: > > Are you an ARIN Member in Good Standing as defined by the ARIN > (http://www.arin.net/membership/index.html)? > > Thank you, > dsd > Hi, If he has an ASN dated 12-1998 (A year after ARINs creation), wouldn't it mean he was? (Provided his payment is current) Tuc/TBOH From info at arin.net Wed Feb 6 10:28:16 2008 From: info at arin.net (Member Services) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:28:16 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] ARIN Mailing Lists Message-ID: <47A9D210.4020409@arin.net> Dean Anderson's privilege to post and participate in ARIN's various mail lists has been suspended until April 7, 2008, 8:00am EST. This decision was taken in accordance with the procedures in ARIN's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP). Mr. Anderson was previously warned, in writing, in November to stop making per se defamatory comments. He recently made another "untrue and per se defamatory posting alleging criminal activity." Regards, Raymond A. Plzak President & CEO The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Feb 6 10:29:06 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:29:06 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <200802061518.m16FIGW1052867@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> References: <200802061518.m16FIGW1052867@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> Message-ID: > If he has an ASN dated 12-1998 (A year after ARINs > creation), wouldn't it mean he was? (Provided his payment is current) No need for reverse engineering. According to Dean's company is a member. The question now is whether or not it is a member in good standing, i.e. have all the bills been paid up to date. --Michael Dillon From mhalligan at bitpusher.com Wed Feb 6 10:40:40 2008 From: mhalligan at bitpusher.com (Michael T. Halligan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:40:40 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3925AFD0-88C9-4AFA-96FB-C0A641112015@bitpusher.com> >> the history starts and ends with the fact that mr. anderson thinks >> it's a good and right thing to run an open mail relay. > > In fact, I did win the argument (open relays are not anonymous and > they > do not enable spam), and the losers did pay my legal fees. Dale carnegie once said that a man can never win an argument. He even wrote a book about the subject, you might do well by looking it up? From chad at onr.com Wed Feb 6 10:50:39 2008 From: chad at onr.com (Chad Kissinger) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 09:50:39 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yeah, and I can claim to be your daddy. Does that make it true? Just because some lawyer dreamed up everything he could possibly think of to include in a court filing doesn't mean any of it means anything. People sue each other all the time claiming that the other party did things that they, indeed, didn't do. If you really were involved with a substantial business, you'd know that. I've been watching this now for weeks by my estimation, and am stunned that this has been going on for so long. You've been assaulting the character of Paul Vixie for weeks now and, apparently, the worst you can say about him is that somebody sued him once and made some big claims when they did. I think Dean is full of it. I don't think he has a lawyer and if he does, I don't think he has the resources or the standing to do anything about whatever perceived wrong he thinks there is (does anyone really know what that is?) I think Dean is his own lawyer and, having dealt with lots of real lawyers for a long time, I think Dean probably isn't a very good one... I second the idea of having some way for the list members to vote on killing a thread/list membership... you can be a member of ARIN and participate, but if you're going to shout endlessly and baselessly, the rest of us should be able to say shut up. Onramp Access chad kissinger | president | onramp access, inc. p: 512.322.9200 | f: 512.476.2878 | www.onr.com your internet operations | built | deployed | managed -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Dean Anderson Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:50 PM To: michael.dillon at bt.com Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance Exactis v. MAPS (Colorado District Court Case Number 00-CV-2250) cited charges of Tortious Interference with Contract, Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relations, violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation and Extortion, violation of the Colorado Communications Privacy Act, violation of the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, violation of the Colorado Antitrust act --Dean On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: > > The Exactis V. MAPS case was indeed an organized crime case. > > > The facts I cited are true. > > Not according to this copy of the court motion > http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis1.html > > In that document, the claim of organized crime does not > appear in the Statement of Facts (section II) but in the > Legal Argument (section III). > > According to this record > http://www.dotcomeon.com/exactis.html > the lawsuit with its claim of organized crime, did > not succeed, as Exactis claimed it would in their > injunction request. Instead, the case was dismissed. > > Half truths and innuendo are not facts. > > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > -- Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service? www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service 617 344 9000 _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From owen at delong.com Wed Feb 6 11:49:42 2008 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 08:49:42 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: <200802061518.m16FIGW1052867@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> References: <200802061518.m16FIGW1052867@himinbjorg.tucs-beachin-obx-house.com> Message-ID: <58DCFE7D-209D-42C6-A331-BAEDD396BA3D@delong.com> On Feb 6, 2008, at 7:18 AM, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote: >> >> Mr. Anderson, >> >> Based on many of your posts and your known position as a Legacy >> Holder >> who suggests not signing the ARIN RSA. I am left with a question: >> >> Are you an ARIN Member in Good Standing as defined by the ARIN >> (http://www.arin.net/membership/index.html)? >> >> Thank you, >> dsd >> > Hi, > > If he has an ASN dated 12-1998 (A year after ARINs creation), > wouldn't it mean he was? (Provided his payment is current) Not necessarily. You can get resources without being a member. End users receive resources, but, only become members if they sign up for membership separately. ISPs, OTOH, are "subscriber members" which means that their membership is part of the (much higher) annual fees they pay for their resources. Owen From Ron at Cleven.com Wed Feb 6 12:14:52 2008 From: Ron at Cleven.com (Ron Cleven) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:14:52 -0600 (CST) Subject: [arin-discuss] End of an era Message-ID: <47A9EB0A.9060006@Cleven.com> Darn, with Dean being kicked off, I guess I will never hear the end of the story. I have been watching with interest to see if Dean ever drew a clear link between Paul Vixie and SORBS (perhaps he did and I missed it). If, in fact, Vixie was involved in something resembling the current SORBS "organization", I, for one, certainly would not want him involved in ARIN. Anyone fortunate enough to be unfamiliar with SORBS can just type "SORBS extortion" into google. Of course, if Mr. Vixie could put my mind at ease (I am sure that is high on his priority list), he would be welcome to reply and express his opinion on the current state of affairs with SORBS. I have to hope he is not in favor of their current extortion scheme. From jharle at ibahn.com Wed Feb 6 12:20:36 2008 From: jharle at ibahn.com (Harle, Jim) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:20:36 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] End of an era In-Reply-To: <47A9EB0A.9060006@Cleven.com> References: <47A9EB0A.9060006@Cleven.com> Message-ID: <88E5553DC065334B9D5E9E13622828BE81EE25@s-mail1-slc-svo.stsn.com> > Darn, with Dean being kicked off, I guess I will never hear the end of > the story. No, just consider it a two-month rest. From jsantana at rgts.com Wed Feb 6 12:22:53 2008 From: jsantana at rgts.com (John Santana) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:22:53 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] End of an era In-Reply-To: <88E5553DC065334B9D5E9E13622828BE81EE25@s-mail1-slc-svo.stsn.com> References: <47A9EB0A.9060006@Cleven.com> <88E5553DC065334B9D5E9E13622828BE81EE25@s-mail1-slc-svo.stsn.com> Message-ID: ..I think we are all going to start suffering from Stockholm-Syndrome. -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Harle, Jim Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:21 PM To: Ron Cleven; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] End of an era > Darn, with Dean being kicked off, I guess I will never hear the end of > the story. No, just consider it a two-month rest. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kyle.ackerman at xtratyme.com Wed Feb 6 13:02:15 2008 From: kyle.ackerman at xtratyme.com (Kyle Ackerman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:02:15 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? Message-ID: Mr. Plzak, Many of us would have to agree that Dean Anderson can be outright annoying. He appears to have a significant amount of time to pursue angles and details that many of us would never consider nor take the time to discuss. While I can't say I agree with his approach, nor do I condone his "soapbox" approach, do you or we have the right to restrict his First Amendment rights? Is there really proof that he has violated the ARIN AUP or is "someone" just tired of reading his emails? We live in a country where people can burn flags, where protesters can waste considerable time and money, where we have the right to voice our opinion. Like it or not, these are things that are part of our American foundation. I am not a supporter of Dean's tirades but I AM a supporter of our U.S. Constitution and the right to voice an opinion. There are others on the list that have seen merit in some of the concerns that Dean has outlined so it appears that, at the very least, some of the members are benefiting from this discussion. I would like to request a clarification, for the sake of Dean's First Amendment rights as an American citizen, on how he violated the current list AUP. I realize that the list is not a public forum for "soap-boxing" and that you have the right to censor certain discussion... But... is this REALLY what we want to set as a precedence for future topical discussions? If the discussion gets ugly do we want to simply "turn off" those that disagree with our viewpoints? Dean obviously has a mission and is passionate about certain things. Some would say "way too many things". But, again, have we unfairly censored his right to participate in this organization? You mentioned that he was "blacklisted" for the following reason: "untrue and per se defamatory posting alleging criminal activity." Could you please provide some supporting details on this? I am embarrassed to admit how much time I have spent reading the submissions to this list in the past 6 months. But, the one thing that I do notice is that Dean typically supports all of his claims and/or discussions with information that can be verified as factual (or not). If he chooses to risk a lawsuit for defamation and/or character damage, isn?t that his risk and not ARIN?s? Unless you have proof that the information he has posted is untrue, isn't he innocent until proven guilty? If you can truly support your allegation listed above, then I will support your decision 100%. If not, shouldn?t we consider Dean?s right to free speech? I?d be interested to hear what the other members think on this topic. Regards, Kyle Kyle Ackerman Founder Xtratyme Technologies, Inc. "Home of the Blueprint America Program" www.xtratyme.com 888.987.2896 (888-XTRATYME) ? "We develop partnerships with individuals, groups, businesses, and governmental units that understand the importance of bringing good quality high-speed Internet access to everyone in their local community" P.S. What will I do for interesting reading if Dean is not available? Maybe he should start his own ?soapbox? website???? ;) I guess I will have to do REAL work today! From mhalligan at bitpusher.com Wed Feb 6 13:14:47 2008 From: mhalligan at bitpusher.com (Michael T. Halligan) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:14:47 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Many of us would have to agree that Dean Anderson can be outright > annoying. He appears to have a significant amount of time to pursue > angles and details that many of us would never consider nor take the > time to discuss. While I can't say I agree with his approach, nor > do I > condone his "soapbox" approach, do you or we have the right to > restrict > his First Amendment rights? Is there really proof that he has > violated > the ARIN AUP or is "someone" just tired of reading his emails? From reading the AUP of the mailing list at http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#nine2 , it's clear he has been violating this bulletpoint: "Any unprofessional or confrontational comments showing a lack of respect, such as using foul or abusive language or attacking someone's character, will not be tolerated." It's also pretty clear that he has violated this one: "The promotion of political views is not appropriate." Also, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Andersen's vehement dislike of Mr. Vixie for the last decade doesn't violate this last one: "Independent issues not affecting the larger IP community are not appropriate unless ARIN-specific, nor are comments of a personal nature. Can we please get back to ARIN business? I'm sure Dean has already moved onto disrupting other communities and forums with this. Michael T. Halligan ------------------------ Chief Technology Officer BitPusher, LLC http://www.bitpusher.com/ From jer at mia.net Wed Feb 6 13:25:03 2008 From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:25:03 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Importance of Corporate Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0FC46EE7-5C19-45E9-9A64-9295EF7A079D@mia.net> On Feb 6, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Chad Kissinger wrote: > > I second the idea of having some way for the list members to vote on > killing a thread/list membership... you can be a member of ARIN and > participate, but if you're going to shout endlessly and baselessly, > the rest of us should be able to say shut up. That is where a VB forum comes in handy, so you can pick and choose the threads you want to be involved in. Can we assume that the useless banter on the subject will subside with the temporary ban? I would think it only fair to continue banning others that perpetuate this after one of the parties of the conversation was removed. Regards, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey e-mail: jer at mia.net _____________________________________ Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net 401 Host Drive www.dslone.com Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com Phone: (262)248-6759 www.bella-mia.com Fax: (262)248-6959 www.thednsplace.com From andrewo at liveworld.com Wed Feb 6 13:25:52 2008 From: andrewo at liveworld.com (Andrew Oliver) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 10:25:52 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19FAE3C9-8DDF-4A62-BB74-11CE9B8C788E@liveworld.com> On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Kyle Ackerman wrote: > Mr. Plzak, > > Many of us would have to agree that Dean Anderson can be outright > annoying. He appears to have a significant amount of time to pursue > angles and details that many of us would never consider nor take the > time to discuss. While I can't say I agree with his approach, nor > do I > condone his "soapbox" approach, do you or we have the right to > restrict > his First Amendment rights? Is there really proof that he has > violated > the ARIN AUP or is "someone" just tired of reading his emails? All else aside, the First Amendment does not apply here. The First Amendment applies only to restrictions on Congress' ability to pass laws affecting people's freedom of speech. It has no bearing in private entities. This is a common misconception that a lot of people have. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0407a.asp That doesn't affect whether it was right or not for ARIN to block Dean (or anyone else's) posts, but it is an ARIN matter, not a First Amendment one. Andrew :) From kyle.ackerman at xtratyme.com Wed Feb 6 13:26:27 2008 From: kyle.ackerman at xtratyme.com (Kyle Ackerman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 12:26:27 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: <47A9F9F1.9070901@vantage.com> Message-ID: Jon, Do we all have to work through our lawyers or is it okay to think on our own? I think, if you read the context of what I wrote, I DO understand that ARIN has the right to censor Dean's discussion. I was simply questioning whether or not he really violated the AUP and suggested that maybe we should follow premise that was set forth by the Constitution. Is it okay that I ask that question or do we need to waste more of our money by wasting lawyer time? I "thought", since I was an ARIN member, that I could voice my opinion. Is this incorrect? Kyle Ackerman Founder Xtratyme Technologies, Inc. "Home of the Blueprint America Program" www.xtratyme.com 888.987.2896 (888-XTRATYME) "We develop partnerships with individuals, groups, businesses, and governmental units that understand the importance of bringing good quality high-speed Internet access to everyone in their local community" -----Original Message----- From: Jon Radel [mailto:jradel at vantage.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:18 PM To: Kyle Ackerman Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? I suggest you consult with *your* lawyer and get an explanation of what the 1st amendment actually means. Or are you under the impression that ARIN is a governmental body? Jon Radel Senior Director of Engineering Vantage Communications p: 267-756-1014 f: 202-742-5661 e: jradel at vantage.com "When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the state of science, whatever the matter may be." ~Lord Kelvin Kyle Ackerman wrote: > Mr. Plzak, > > Many of us would have to agree that Dean Anderson can be outright > annoying. He appears to have a significant amount of time to pursue > angles and details that many of us would never consider nor take the > time to discuss. While I can't say I agree with his approach, nor do I > condone his "soapbox" approach, do you or we have the right to restrict > his First Amendment rights? Is there really proof that he has violated > the ARIN AUP or is "someone" just tired of reading his emails? > > We live in a country where people can burn flags, where protesters can > waste considerable time and money, where we have the right to voice our > opinion. Like it or not, these are things that are part of our American > foundation. I am not a supporter of Dean's tirades but I AM a supporter > of our U.S. Constitution and the right to voice an opinion. There are > others on the list that have seen merit in some of the concerns that > Dean has outlined so it appears that, at the very least, some of the > members are benefiting from this discussion. > > I would like to request a clarification, for the sake of Dean's First > Amendment rights as an American citizen, on how he violated the current > list AUP. I realize that the list is not a public forum for > "soap-boxing" and that you have the right to censor certain > discussion... But... is this REALLY what we want to set as a precedence > for future topical discussions? If the discussion gets ugly do we want > to simply "turn off" those that disagree with our viewpoints? > > Dean obviously has a mission and is passionate about certain things. > Some would say "way too many things". But, again, have we unfairly > censored his right to participate in this organization? You mentioned > that he was "blacklisted" for the following reason: > > "untrue and per se defamatory posting alleging criminal activity." > > Could you please provide some supporting details on this? I am > embarrassed to admit how much time I have spent reading the submissions > to this list in the past 6 months. But, the one thing that I do notice > is that Dean typically supports all of his claims and/or discussions > with information that can be verified as factual (or not). If he > chooses to risk a lawsuit for defamation and/or character damage, isn't > that his risk and not ARIN's? Unless you have proof that the > information he has posted is untrue, isn't he innocent until proven > guilty? > > If you can truly support your allegation listed above, then I will > support your decision 100%. If not, shouldn't we consider Dean's right > to free speech? I'd be interested to hear what the other members think > on this topic. > > Regards, > > Kyle > > Kyle Ackerman > Founder > Xtratyme Technologies, Inc. > "Home of the Blueprint America Program" > www.xtratyme.com > 888.987.2896 (888-XTRATYME) > > "We develop partnerships with individuals, groups, businesses, and > governmental units that understand the importance of bringing good > quality high-speed Internet access to everyone in their local community" > > P.S. What will I do for interesting reading if Dean is not available? > Maybe he should start his own "soapbox" website???? ;) I guess I will > have to do REAL work today! > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1262 - Release Date: 2/6/2008 9:13 AM From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Feb 6 13:49:51 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:49:51 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > do you or we have the right to restrict his First > Amendment rights? Irrelevant. Neither we nor ARIN hold any powers that are ultimately delegated by the Federal government. >Is there really proof that he has violated > the ARIN AUP or is "someone" just tired of reading his emails? The ARIN president stated the proof in his email. Check the archives and read more carefully. > We live in a country where people can burn flags, Not inside a Walmart store! > where > protesters can waste considerable time and money, Not in the City Council chambers! > where we > have the right to voice our opinion. Not inside a synagogue! > Like it or not, these > are things that are part of our American foundation. Our? Since when is ARIN American!? In any case, *YOUR* American foundation, which you seem to be quite ignorant of, has a whole series of limits on your rights, including that so-called free-speech right that you Americans are so fond of. My advice to you is that before you start telling people what rights you Americans have, you should do a little reading and educate yourself about how and why there are *LIMITS* to those rights. > I am > not a supporter of Dean's tirades but I AM a supporter of our > U.S. Constitution and the right to voice an opinion. You don't have the rights that you think you have. Even before 9-11 you did not have those kind of rights. > I realize that the list is > not a public forum for "soap-boxing" and that you have the > right to censor certain discussion... Oh! The penny is beginning to drop... > If he chooses to risk a > lawsuit for defamation and/or character damage, isn't that > his risk and not ARIN's? Again, an amateur lawyer. Look, if you don't know how the U.S. legal system works, then don't make baseless assertions about it. At minimum, you need to have a first year university course in commercial law or the equivalent, before you can understand these things. > Unless you have proof that the > information he has posted is untrue, isn't he innocent until > proven guilty? So police officers in the USA don't issue tickets for speeding until AFTER they have a court decision that you were actually guilty? > I'd be interested to > hear what the other members think on this topic. See above. --Michael Dillon From Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz Wed Feb 6 13:50:25 2008 From: Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz (Edward Lewis) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:50:25 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 12:02 -0600 2/6/08, Kyle Ackerman wrote: >We live in a country where people can burn flags, where protesters can >waste considerable time and money, where we have the right to voice our >opinion. Prior to the past few ARIN Open Policy Meetings there were long discussions on the many proposals put before us, all germane to the task ARIN has set out to fulfill. 13 proposals were covered, 12 of them new. We are about 24 or 48 hours before the deadline for new proposals to get discussed at the next OPM. There are currently 8 open proposals, 6 of them carried forward from the previous meeting. Just 2 of them new. It's not conclusive evidence of anything, it's not a scientific poll, but something seems to have derailed the functioning of ARIN. I looked up these because, it seemed to me, that there's a lot less to read in preparation for the next OPM, less that any meeting in recent years. Yet there are so many posts to the ARIN lists. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Mail archives, backups. Sometimes I think the true beneficiaries of standards work are the suppliers of disk drives. From michael.dillon at bt.com Wed Feb 6 13:53:07 2008 From: michael.dillon at bt.com (michael.dillon at bt.com) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 18:53:07 -0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: References: <47A9F9F1.9070901@vantage.com> Message-ID: > Is it okay that I ask that question or do we need to waste > more of our money by wasting lawyer time? I "thought", since > I was an ARIN member, that I could voice my opinion. Is this > incorrect? I am shocked! I am speechless! Did you or did you not write the following only 20 minutes earlier? > > I'd be interested to hear what the other members think > > on this topic. --Michael Dillon From jps at layeredtech.com Wed Feb 6 13:57:36 2008 From: jps at layeredtech.com (Jeremy Suo-Anttila) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 12:57:36 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AA0320.7090501@layeredtech.com> How do I get removed from this list? Thanks, Jeremy michael.dillon at bt.com wrote: >> do you or we have the right to restrict his First >> Amendment rights? > > Irrelevant. Neither we nor ARIN hold any powers that are > ultimately delegated by the Federal government. > >> Is there really proof that he has violated >> the ARIN AUP or is "someone" just tired of reading his emails? > > The ARIN president stated the proof in his email. > Check the archives and read more carefully. > >> We live in a country where people can burn flags, > > Not inside a Walmart store! > >> where >> protesters can waste considerable time and money, > > Not in the City Council chambers! > >> where we >> have the right to voice our opinion. > > Not inside a synagogue! > >> Like it or not, these >> are things that are part of our American foundation. > > Our? Since when is ARIN American!? > In any case, *YOUR* American foundation, which you seem > to be quite ignorant of, has a whole series of limits on > your rights, including that so-called free-speech right that > you Americans are so fond of. My advice to you is that before > you start telling people what rights you Americans have, you > should do a little reading and educate yourself about how > and why there are *LIMITS* to those rights. > >> I am >> not a supporter of Dean's tirades but I AM a supporter of our >> U.S. Constitution and the right to voice an opinion. > > You don't have the rights that you think you have. Even before > 9-11 you did not have those kind of rights. > >> I realize that the list is >> not a public forum for "soap-boxing" and that you have the >> right to censor certain discussion... > > Oh! The penny is beginning to drop... > >> If he chooses to risk a >> lawsuit for defamation and/or character damage, isn't that >> his risk and not ARIN's? > > Again, an amateur lawyer. Look, if you don't know how the U.S. > legal system works, then don't make baseless assertions about > it. At minimum, you need to have a first year university course > in commercial law or the equivalent, before you can understand > these things. > >> Unless you have proof that the >> information he has posted is untrue, isn't he innocent until >> proven guilty? > > So police officers in the USA don't issue tickets for speeding > until AFTER they have a court decision that you were actually > guilty? > >> I'd be interested to >> hear what the other members think on this topic. > > See above. > > --Michael Dillon > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > From paul at vix.com Wed Feb 6 14:07:28 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:07:28 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] End of an era In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:14:52 CST." <47A9EB0A.9060006@Cleven.com> References: <47A9EB0A.9060006@Cleven.com> Message-ID: <77541.1202324848@sa.vix.com> > Of course, if Mr. Vixie could put my mind at ease (I am sure that is > high on his priority list), he would be welcome to reply and express his > opinion on the current state of affairs with SORBS. I have to hope he > is not in favor of their current extortion scheme. i don't know much about matthew's business model. he is a friend, and i am helping with some sysadmin on some of his nameservers in the united states (not connected to or affiliated with arin or isc in any way). i don't want to see a SORBS roast-off here on this mailing list, since the only way in which it would be on-topic ("ARIN related") is through me. if you'd like to discuss the SORBS business model with me 1x1 and tell me your concerns, i'll tell you my thoughts, and it's possible you'll convince me to go yell at matthew if he really is doing something that fits the definition of "extortion". note that google isn't a high-accuracy character reference on controversial topics. (nor is wikipedia, i now see that dean anderson has extensively edited the entry on open relay to support his somewhat unique point of view.) From eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net Wed Feb 6 14:23:33 2008 From: eddy+arin+spam at noc.everquick.net (Edward B. DREGER) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 19:23:33 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [arin-discuss] call for sanity Message-ID: Please, no more airmchair lawyers. Let's all chill out, relax, have a cooling-off period, and get back to ARIN's intended purpose. I'm not in a position to speculate, but I hate to think what's happening to list membership and readership. I fear that we're losing both the attention and the respect of our colleagues. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. From jcavallaro at cv.net Wed Feb 6 14:38:52 2008 From: jcavallaro at cv.net (John Cavallaro) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:38:52 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] call for sanity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001401c868f7$e73ca020$3afafe0a@25tj5d1> Amen Regards John Cavallaro Director Network Engineering Network Management & Telecommunication Cablevision Systems Corp. jcavallaro at cv.net Cell 516-315-5752 Office 516-390-5458 Nextel 364 -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Edward B. DREGER Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:24 PM To: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-discuss] call for sanity Please, no more airmchair lawyers. Let's all chill out, relax, have a cooling-off period, and get back to ARIN's intended purpose. I'm not in a position to speculate, but I hate to think what's happening to list membership and readership. I fear that we're losing both the attention and the respect of our colleagues. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From kyle.ackerman at xtratyme.com Wed Feb 6 14:40:40 2008 From: kyle.ackerman at xtratyme.com (Kyle Ackerman) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:40:40 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: <47AA0A22.6090304@Iplink.net> Message-ID: Alvin, Thank you for the clarification. I too, thought that Dean "crossed the line" when he called it "organized crime". I was really more curious than anything and wanted to know what it would take to get kicked off this list and how that action would be justified. I avoid "lists" like the plague because those that (think) they are the world's smartest people seem to dictate the topics of discussion. I'm all for discussing ARIN business only and will sit back and keep my mouth shut unless I have something topical to discuss. Have a great day everyone! Kyle Ackerman Founder Xtratyme Technologies, Inc. "Home of the Blueprint America Program" www.xtratyme.com 888.987.2896 (888-XTRATYME) "We develop partnerships with individuals, groups, businesses, and governmental units that understand the importance of bringing good quality high-speed Internet access to everyone in their local community" -----Original Message----- From: Alvin Starr [mailto:alvin at iplink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:28 PM To: Kyle Ackerman Subject: [SPAM] Re: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? Importance: Low Kyle Ackerman wrote: > Mr. Plzak, > > Many of us would have to agree that Dean Anderson can be outright > annoying. He appears to have a significant amount of time to pursue > angles and details that many of us would never consider nor take the > time to discuss. While I can't say I agree with his approach, nor do I > condone his "soapbox" approach, do you or we have the right to restrict > his First Amendment rights? Is there really proof that he has violated > the ARIN AUP or is "someone" just tired of reading his emails? > > We live in a country where people can burn flags, where protesters can > waste considerable time and money, where we have the right to voice our > opinion. Like it or not, these are things that are part of our American > foundation. I am not a supporter of Dean's tirades but I AM a supporter > of our U.S. Constitution and the right to voice an opinion. There are > others on the list that have seen merit in some of the concerns that > Dean has outlined so it appears that, at the very least, some of the > members are benefiting from this discussion. > > I would like to request a clarification, for the sake of Dean's First > Amendment rights as an American citizen, on how he violated the current > list AUP. I realize that the list is not a public forum for > "soap-boxing" and that you have the right to censor certain > discussion... But... is this REALLY what we want to set as a precedence > for future topical discussions? If the discussion gets ugly do we want > to simply "turn off" those that disagree with our viewpoints? > > Dean obviously has a mission and is passionate about certain things. > Some would say "way too many things". But, again, have we unfairly > censored his right to participate in this organization? You mentioned > that he was "blacklisted" for the following reason: > > "untrue and per se defamatory posting alleging criminal activity." > Dean has said that Paul Vixie is involved with organized crime. Several times both on and off list. This is in relation to a court case that was first a civil matter and secondly was settled out of court. So the voracity of the a ligations was never really tested or proved. The same rule applies that says you cannot call OJ Simpson a murder. So I would have to second the ARIN point of view. > Could you please provide some supporting details on this? I am > embarrassed to admit how much time I have spent reading the submissions > to this list in the past 6 months. But, the one thing that I do notice > is that Dean typically supports all of his claims and/or discussions > with information that can be verified as factual (or not). If he > chooses to risk a lawsuit for defamation and/or character damage, isn't > that his risk and not ARIN's? Unless you have proof that the > information he has posted is untrue, isn't he innocent until proven > guilty? > > I hope you can now provide support for this action. If you want more info I can cut and paste some email snippits for you. > If you can truly support your allegation listed above, then I will > support your decision 100%. If not, shouldn't we consider Dean's right > to free speech? I'd be interested to hear what the other members think > on this topic. > > Regards, > > Kyle > > Kyle Ackerman > Founder > Xtratyme Technologies, Inc. > "Home of the Blueprint America Program" > www.xtratyme.com > 888.987.2896 (888-XTRATYME) > > "We develop partnerships with individuals, groups, businesses, and > governmental units that understand the importance of bringing good > quality high-speed Internet access to everyone in their local community" > > P.S. What will I do for interesting reading if Dean is not available? > Maybe he should start his own "soapbox" website???? ;) I guess I will > have to do REAL work today! > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > -- Alvin Starr || voice: (416)585-9971 Interlink Connectivity || fax: (416)585-9974 alvin at iplink.net || -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1262 - Release Date: 2/6/2008 9:13 AM From jer at mia.net Wed Feb 6 15:13:57 2008 From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:13:57 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 6, 2008, at 12:14 PM, Michael T. Halligan wrote: >> >> his First Amendment rights? Is there really proof that he has >> violated >> the ARIN AUP or is "someone" just tired of reading his emails? > > > Can we please get back to ARIN business? I'm sure Dean has already > moved onto disrupting other communities and forums with this. I would have to agree. After all, this is ARIN's AUP, not the US Constitution. The first amendment does not apply.. Regards, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey e-mail: jer at mia.net _____________________________________ Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net 401 Host Drive www.dslone.com Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com Phone: (262)248-6759 www.bella-mia.com Fax: (262)248-6959 www.thednsplace.com From jer at mia.net Wed Feb 6 15:22:31 2008 From: jer at mia.net (Jeremy Anthony Kinsey) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:22:31 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: <47AA0320.7090501@layeredtech.com> References: <47AA0320.7090501@layeredtech.com> Message-ID: On Feb 6, 2008, at 12:57 PM, Jeremy Suo-Anttila wrote: > How do I get removed from this list? > 1. Violate ARIN AUP 2. Stop paying your annual bill 3. READ Option 3 works 6 times out of 10 for most. Hint... It is right below this sentence: >> > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > Regards, Jeremy Anthony Kinsey e-mail: jer at mia.net _____________________________________ Bella Mia, Inc. www.mia.net 401 Host Drive www.dslone.com Lake Geneva, WI. 53147 www.hostdrive.com Phone: (262)248-6759 www.bella-mia.com Fax: (262)248-6959 www.thednsplace.com From aaron at crucialp.com Wed Feb 6 15:39:52 2008 From: aaron at crucialp.com (Aaron Weller // Crucial Paradigm) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:39:52 +1100 Subject: [arin-discuss] call for sanity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AA1B18.5020805@crucialp.com> Agreed, I'm about to unsubscribe to these lists if it doesn't stop soon! Edward B. DREGER wrote: > Please, no more airmchair lawyers. Let's all chill out, relax, have a > cooling-off period, and get back to ARIN's intended purpose. > > I'm not in a position to speculate, but I hate to think what's happening > to list membership and readership. I fear that we're losing both the > attention and the respect of our colleagues. > > > Eddy > -- > Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ > A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ > Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building > Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national > Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita > ________________________________________________________________________ > DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: > davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net > Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. > Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter. > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > > From jharle at ibahn.com Wed Feb 6 15:51:09 2008 From: jharle at ibahn.com (Harle, Jim) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:51:09 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] call for sanity In-Reply-To: <47AA1B18.5020805@crucialp.com> References: <47AA1B18.5020805@crucialp.com> Message-ID: <88E5553DC065334B9D5E9E13622828BE81F02D@s-mail1-slc-svo.stsn.com> Aaron Weller allegedly wrote: > Agreed, I'm about to unsubscribe to these lists if it doesn't stop soon! >> Edward B. DREGER wrote: >> Please, no more airmchair lawyers. Let's all chill out, relax, have a >> cooling-off period, and get back to ARIN's intended purpose. May I suggest using whatever sort of "rules" your mail reader supports, to move the mailing list messages to a location other than your main inbox. This practice makes sorting through all of the [non]sense a lot less painful. Apologies if I'm being redundant; I think about this frequently, but can't remember if I've ever dared "open my mouth" to say it. Cheers , Jim From aaron at crucialp.com Wed Feb 6 15:58:25 2008 From: aaron at crucialp.com (Aaron Weller // Crucial Paradigm) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:58:25 +1100 Subject: [arin-discuss] call for sanity In-Reply-To: <88E5553DC065334B9D5E9E13622828BE81F02D@s-mail1-slc-svo.stsn.com> References: <47AA1B18.5020805@crucialp.com> <88E5553DC065334B9D5E9E13622828BE81F02D@s-mail1-slc-svo.stsn.com> Message-ID: <47AA1F71.3040708@crucialp.com> I already do do this ;) Harle, Jim wrote: > Aaron Weller allegedly wrote: > > >> Agreed, I'm about to unsubscribe to these lists if it doesn't stop >> > soon! > > >>> Edward B. DREGER wrote: >>> Please, no more airmchair lawyers. Let's all chill out, relax, have >>> > a > >>> cooling-off period, and get back to ARIN's intended purpose. >>> > > May I suggest using whatever sort of "rules" your mail reader supports, > to move the mailing list messages to a location other than your main > inbox. This practice makes sorting through all of the [non]sense a lot > less painful. > > Apologies if I'm being redundant; I think about this frequently, but > can't remember if I've ever dared "open my mouth" to say it. > > Cheers , > > Jim > > From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Feb 6 16:22:03 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:22:03 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <28369.1202261778@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Paul Vixie >Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 5:36 PM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting > > >> >. >> >> Paul, that statement is one of the most bland watered down meaningless >> statements that could be made. How could you possibly be against it? Or >> for it? It requires and mandates NOTHING specific or concrete. > >i don't agree. perhaps it wasn't news to you, but it was the >first official >statement by ARIN that IPv4 won't last forever, and that at some >point in the >future, any network that wants to keep growing, will have to adopt >IPv6. you >might think that's noncontroversial but a lot of folks seem to >think that with >some kind of trading market, and a lot of NAT, and a lot of other >tricks, the >internet can keep growing the number of connected+reachable devices without >end. > I had thought it was proven pretty conclusively by the surveys of the existing IP namespace - that is, how much of it is still tied up in legacy use, etc. - and by the rate of IPv4 uptake, that this is an impossible scenario. I guess maybe it was proven to me - although perhaps the information is too scattered for the general public? I honestly didn't know that there were still people out there who were seriously entertaining an IPv6-less scenario on the Internet. Nevertheless, this kind of controversy is easily solved by posting a FAQ on IPv6 on the ARIN website that answers some of the more obvious questions such as "why do we have to move to IPv6" etc. Still though, there's controversy on how long IPv4 will hang around. Of course, ARIN cannot prevent people from using assigned IPv4 numbering as long as ARIN is still charging a fee for the assignments - but this begs the question that what is going to be the litmus test for declaring IPv4 "obsolete" and cease charging fees for it and remove all the IPv4 entries from the ARIN whois. When "everyone" is running IPv6 and "most" people have stopped advertising IPv4? Or is ARIN going to just charge fees for IPv4 forever? Or raise fees to the impossible level? > a lot of people told me in response to that >announcement that they thought ARIN's board had overstated the >case for IPv6, >and/or that IPv6 was only one possible way forward, or that IPv6 >was doomed, >or similar. just because you already knew what that announcement >said, don't >assume that ARIN's wider community of interest knew it at the time. > OK, well then perhaps I was a bit too harsh there - and that statement is even today still controversial - in that case, would it not be of interest for board candidates to state their support or not for it in advance of the election? I would think if it's controversal for some people that doing so would increase voting participation. >> And if you actually have a problem with the statement personally, then I >> wouldn't want to elect you if you were not willing to speak your mind. >> >> An honorable board member who had concerns about an issue and >disagreed with >> the majorities decision would not hesitate for a second to speak it >> publically. It is very possible to be opposed to something but still >> implement it. ... > >i think that if there had been serious, strong, principled >dissent, that would >have been reflected in the absence of a board statement on the >topic, rather >than a board statement followed by public dissent by individual trustees. > That's fine - that's the way ARIN's board wants to play it, although I have found that in life there's some things that cannot ever be resolved by consensus. Such as the abortion debate I mentioned a few postings ago, it's going to be fought over for the -next- 1000 years, just as the Islam vs Christianity has been fought over for the -last- 1000 years. It will be interesting to see if the ARIN board ever is faced with one of these issues, what they will choose to do. >> If your not comfortable in the role of disagreeing with >something yet still >> being a part of implementing it, then you frankly do not have the right >> stuff to be on the board. > >i implement stuff all the time that i don't agree with. at home, >at ISC, in >the IETF, in my kids' PTA meetings, and on various boards. my >only insistence >is that all views be heard and that democracy is obtained. but >this goes far >afield of the question, is public dissent a duty if consensus >wasn't smooth. > You had asked how to increase voting - I don't see that there is any way to do so other than to make dissent public. Nobody is interested if the organization insists on consensus for everything, and in fact insisting on consensus can at times create more trouble. For example the US governments approach to global warming is to demand consensus from the US population that there's a problem before they start spending money limiting industry and auto emissions - well we aren't going to get that until NYC floods - and even then, undoubtedly there will still be a few people in the US who claim global warming doesen't exist. consensus is great if the issues aren't time-sensitive. >> You need to put your positions out there on the controversal issues and >> assume that everyone voting will consider your entire list of positions. >> For example, I may deplore your wishy-washy position on IPv6 and prefer >> someone more agressive about implementing it - > >yow. so you didn't know i implemented IPv6 features in BIND8 back in 1996, This was more of an example than anything else, Paul. >years before there was a network to run it on? or that i've >pushed for IPv6 >connectivity for root name servers for at least the last five years, and >that f-root has been answering on IPv6 for years even though it took until >yesterday for ICANN to add AAAA RRs to the root-servers.net zone and root >glue? perhaps i have simply been too quiet, if you call it wishy-washy. I would ask then - were you on the ARIN board 5 years ago? If you were, then yes, you were wishy-washy about it. That is the kind of thing that is needed. During your candidacy for the ARIN board if you had posted (in a forum that so far is non-existent) that you felt the ARIN board was moving too slow on IPv6 followed by the IPv6 resume you listed here, this is exactly the sort of thing that I think would help to increase voter participation. Yes, perhaps it might be a "litmus test" of sorts - but it is also needed and required. > >sounds like you'd be in favour of webinar-style debates, with audience >questions in real time, for future ARIN elections? > As long as they were publically archived, and summarized. >> It will only increase participation if something controversial is in the >> mix. Controversy attracts people. If every candidate comes off all >> agreeing with each other, then nobody will be interested. > >so, the debates should be in the style of a geraldo rivera show? :-) > I think the chances of getting real time participation like this are low, we are all busy folks. I would rather favor the style of a moderated debate where there would be a question submittal period where folks (including the candidates) could submit questions to a moderator in advance, then the moderator would combine like questions and add a synthesis of issues off the mailing list, plus issues that the prior Boards had deferred, and create a master list of open ended questions. Each candidate would respond to the moderator how they saw fit, the questions and responses would then be posted. >election. (note, this is also true of meatspace politics, and it's why >everybody always says that what matters is character, not litmus tests.) It's only true of meatspace politics to a point. Character matters if the candidate is a real snake - a habitual liar, or criminal, etc. but beyond that it's an issues thing - everyone gives lip service to character but they only really care about the issues. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Feb 6 16:42:13 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:42:13 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Kyle Ackerman >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:02 AM >To: arin-discuss at arin.net >Cc: ppml at arin.net >Subject: [arin-discuss] Justifiable Censorship? > > >Mr. Plzak, > >Many of us would have to agree that Dean Anderson can be outright >annoying. He appears to have a significant amount of time to pursue Just a FYI for anyone considering to post to this thread - Dean's right to POST has been suspended. I'm sure he is still getting mail from the list and is no doubt tickled pink with all the concern shown over this. Just keep in mind that by arguing over the suspension your merely feeding a personality that craves attention. Ted From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Feb 6 16:51:33 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 13:51:33 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] call for sanity In-Reply-To: <47AA1B18.5020805@crucialp.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Aaron Weller // >Crucial Paradigm >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:40 PM >To: Edward B. DREGER >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] call for sanity > > >Agreed, I'm about to unsubscribe to these lists if it doesn't stop soon! > Please consider that no one on these lists has any control over the content of posts a subscriber makes. When people like you make threats of these nature your essentially trying to browbeat the folks who have no control over what certain people post, into exercising control over those people. Since this is impossible your effectively asking the subscribers to do the impossible. Please, I get enough of that from my own customers every day, I don't need it from people on this list who should know better. Anyone else who feels compelled to make threats of this nature after reading my gentle reminder here - if you cannot feel you can restrain yourself from threating to unsubscribe after reading this, then kindly remove yourself from the list post haste. Ted From aaron at crucialp.com Wed Feb 6 17:00:02 2008 From: aaron at crucialp.com (Aaron Weller // Crucial Paradigm) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 09:00:02 +1100 Subject: [arin-discuss] call for sanity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AA2DE2.501@crucialp.com> Ted, this was a statement and not a threat. When I wish to remove myself from the list, I most certainly will. Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net >> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Aaron Weller // >> Crucial Paradigm >> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:40 PM >> To: Edward B. DREGER >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] call for sanity >> >> >> Agreed, I'm about to unsubscribe to these lists if it doesn't stop soon! >> >> > > Please consider that no one on these lists has any control over > the content of posts a subscriber makes. When people like you > make threats of these nature your essentially trying to browbeat > the folks who have no control over what certain people post, into > exercising control over those people. Since this is impossible > your effectively asking the subscribers to do the impossible. > > Please, I get enough of that from my own customers every day, I > don't need it from people on this list who should know better. > > Anyone else who feels compelled to make threats of this nature > after reading my gentle reminder here - if you cannot feel you can > restrain yourself from threating to unsubscribe after reading > this, then kindly remove yourself from the list post haste. > > Ted > > From paul at vix.com Wed Feb 6 17:51:46 2008 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:51:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 06 Feb 2008 13:22:03 PST." References: Message-ID: <88144.1202338306@sa.vix.com> > I guess maybe it was proven to me - although perhaps the information is too > scattered for the general public? I honestly didn't know that there were > still people out there who were seriously entertaining an IPv6-less scenario > on the Internet. there were, and there are. i had breakfast with a guy today who works for a big router vendor and has been around the internet since early days who still thinks NAT (which he and i both despise) has won and that IPv6 is doomed since it has no backwards compatibility to IPv4. (for the record, we disagreed.) > ... begs the question that what is going to be the litmus test for declaring > IPv4 "obsolete" and cease charging fees for it and remove all the IPv4 > entries from the ARIN whois. if that does happen it won't be by ARIN board decree, but rather, through the normal ARIN policy process. > When "everyone" is running IPv6 and "most" people have stopped advertising > IPv4? Or is ARIN going to just charge fees for IPv4 forever? Or raise fees > to the impossible level? i don't think any of us knows the endgame. but ARIN's fees aren't meant to be punitive -- every attempt to institute a "sin tax" here has gotten shot down. > ... would it not be of interest for board candidates to state their support > or not for [IPv6 advancement] in advance of the election? I would think if > it's controversal for some people that doing so would increase voting > participation. i guess, when you put it that way, it sounds like a fine idea. john curran has said repeatedly here in recent days that ARIN Denver is where he hopes this community will discuss ways to improve the election process. since our elections are governed by bylaws rather than by the NRPM, the policy process is not really the right way to change our election process. i think that a well reasoned proposal here (arin-discuss@) ideally to be followed up by an in-person proposal during the friday membership meeting, is the way to share your wisdom about getting candidates to answer some hot-button questions in advance of an election. > ... It will be interesting to see if the ARIN board ever is faced with one > of these issues, what they will choose to do. i'm the new guy-- this is only my fourth year on the board. others with longer tenure might know of more divisive (for the board) issues than the ones i've typically faced in my time here. there's a balance to be struck, between principled opposition and principled flexibility, when consensus isn't easy, or else a decision-making body becomes disfunctional and useless. i think the board of trustees has hit that balance very well during my tenure thus far. > ... > For example the US governments approach to global warming is to demand > consensus from the US population that there's a problem before they start > spending money limiting industry and auto emissions - well we aren't going > to get that until NYC floods - and even then, undoubtedly there will still > be a few people in the US who claim global warming doesen't exist. > > consensus is great if the issues aren't time-sensitive. your example is a perfect demonstration of why the board had to issue that IPv6 declaration. there was no way to, no reason to, and no time to get the membership to reach consensus on the matter. i reason that the membership elected the board so that we could reach representative consensus as a small group of focused, educated, and motivated parties with fiduciary duties. but even though the board is smaller than the membership, consensus is still the goal. > ... I would rather favor the style of a moderated debate where there would > be a question submittal period where folks (including the candidates) could > submit questions to a moderator in advance, then the moderator would combine > like questions and add a synthesis of issues off the mailing list, plus > issues that the prior Boards had deferred, and create a master list of open > ended questions. Each candidate would respond to the moderator how they saw > fit, the questions and responses would then be posted. sounds good so far. will need more flesh. could the moderator be drawn from the membership or staff, or should it be an outside consultant? > >election. (note, this is also true of meatspace politics, and it's why > >everybody always says that what matters is character, not litmus tests.) > > It's only true of meatspace politics to a point. Character matters if the > candidate is a real snake - a habitual liar, or criminal, etc. but beyond > that it's an issues thing - everyone gives lip service to character but they > only really care about the issues. i suspect that the character of the president of the united states mattered more than any litmus test, during the cuban missile crisis. that's what i meant by the one mattering more than the other. From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Feb 6 19:25:06 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 16:25:06 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <88144.1202338306@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: vixie at vix.com [mailto:vixie at vix.com]On Behalf Of Paul Vixie >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:52 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting > > >> I guess maybe it was proven to me - although perhaps the >information is too >> scattered for the general public? I honestly didn't know that there were >> still people out there who were seriously entertaining an >IPv6-less scenario >> on the Internet. > >there were, and there are. i had breakfast with a guy today who >works for a >big router vendor and has been around the internet since early >days who still >thinks NAT (which he and i both despise) has won and that IPv6 is >doomed since >it has no backwards compatibility to IPv4. (for the record, we disagreed.) > Well, your both right you know. NAT won a battle - but it's not the battle he was thinking it won. Where NAT won is that without it we wouldn't have the Internet at all today. NAT allowed the Internet to get past the tipping point without having to shread everything and start all over again. The tipping point was the point at which the Internet stopped being a toy and started being a necessity. I remember long enough ago that the argument "we don't need no steenking Internet" had some validity. I heard it often enough when working with our sales people back in the late 90's trying to sell businesses on Internet connectivity. If we had had to go back to our customers in 2002 or some such and tell them that this new Internet thing we had just sold them a couple years earlier was no good anymore and they had to change everything again, they would have tossed us out along with all the other ISP's. Today of course, they are screwed and cannot do this or their competitors will eat them alive. Customers now are demanding their vendors have e-mail and online websites and all that and so in 5 or 6 years from now when I tell them they have to toss everything and put in IPv6, they will accept it without question. NAT basically took the entire IPv4 vs IPv6 argument and moved it into the purvue of a bunch of techs who don't really have anything to say about it in any case. When the last IPv4 assignment is out the door those techs will be told by their CEO's to implement IPv6 and shut up about it. You just watch North America and the conversion to High Def TV next February. I have hardly heard a peep from friends of mine along the lines of "why are we doing this" Every last one of them has swallowed the line that they need to do it because Someone Who Knows More Than They Do has told them to do it, and all of them are running out and spending their income tax refund on big TV sets. Maybe one or two of them has made the observation that there's no better programming on Hi Def than on the old formats, you would think that might prompt the question of why are we doing this - but no it hasn't. Consumers are getting used to the idea in high tech that things change and your old stuff isn't going to work forever. Hell, a 1960's rotary dial handset telephone still works perfectly fine on the telephone network - when was the last time you saw one of those? There's a case of a technical upgrade made when one was not even required. > >> ... would it not be of interest for board candidates to state >their support >> or not for [IPv6 advancement] in advance of the election? I >would think if >> it's controversal for some people that doing so would increase voting >> participation. > >i guess, when you put it that way, it sounds like a fine idea. john curran >has said repeatedly here in recent days that ARIN Denver is where he hopes >this community will discuss ways to improve the election process. >since our >elections are governed by bylaws rather than by the NRPM, the >policy process >is not really the right way to change our election process. i think that a >well reasoned proposal here (arin-discuss@) ideally to be followed up by an >in-person proposal during the friday membership meeting, is the >way to share >your wisdom about getting candidates to answer some hot-button questions in >advance of an election. > OK, I'll see what I can put together. However, keep in mind this is just my opinion on what would increase voting. I've operated from the premise that controversy during an election increases turnout. I haven't seen much posted to this thread. I don't know if this is because everyone else kind of agrees with me or if no one else has any different ideas. My experience - in following US politics for the last 27 years, and in reading much about politics in history of the US - is that people are attracted to elections that are controversal, they want to vote in them, and as a result the vote count increases. Thus, if you want to increase participation - be more controversal. Now the key is, though, that the controversy must affect the voters you want participating. Candidates arguing over the best color scheme to use on the arin website likly won't increase participation, bikeshed theory nonwithstanding. > >> ... I would rather favor the style of a moderated debate where >there would >> be a question submittal period where folks (including the >candidates) could >> submit questions to a moderator in advance, then the moderator >would combine >> like questions and add a synthesis of issues off the mailing list, plus >> issues that the prior Boards had deferred, and create a master >list of open >> ended questions. Each candidate would respond to the moderator >how they saw >> fit, the questions and responses would then be posted. > >sounds good so far. will need more flesh. could the moderator be >drawn from >the membership or staff, or should it be an outside consultant? > Ideally it should be someone from ARIN staff who I believe is forbidden to vote in these elections. Ideally, that person should be assisted by any outgoing board members NOT running for re-election, along with board members who are not up for re-election during that election. Ideally, the moderators involvement in the entire voting process should be confined to this task only. If the process is an open one (ie: the raw questions are available, the board minutes are available, the list postings used are available) then it really does not matter that much who the moderator is. Ted From sleibrand at internap.com Wed Feb 6 19:35:19 2008 From: sleibrand at internap.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:35:19 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AA5247.5020002@internap.com> Overall, I'm in favor of debates as a way to increase voter participation, and bring to light real differences between candidates, both in their positions and in their "character": the ability to think on their feet, communicate effectively, and demonstrate an understanding of the issues important to the position. I don't much like the practice in meatspace politics of creating/exaggerating controversy where none really exists, but I think there are enough differing views on issues of substance that some form of debate would help us pick the best candidates, both for the BoT and the AC. -Scott Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: vixie at vix.com [mailto:vixie at vix.com]On Behalf Of Paul Vixie >> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:52 PM >> To: Ted Mittelstaedt >> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting >> >> >> >>> I guess maybe it was proven to me - although perhaps the >>> >> information is too >> >>> scattered for the general public? I honestly didn't know that there were >>> still people out there who were seriously entertaining an >>> >> IPv6-less scenario >> >>> on the Internet. >>> >> there were, and there are. i had breakfast with a guy today who >> works for a >> big router vendor and has been around the internet since early >> days who still >> thinks NAT (which he and i both despise) has won and that IPv6 is >> doomed since >> it has no backwards compatibility to IPv4. (for the record, we disagreed.) >> >> > > Well, your both right you know. NAT won a battle - but it's not the > battle he was thinking it won. Where NAT won is that without it > we wouldn't have the Internet at all today. NAT allowed the Internet > to get past the tipping point without having to shread everything and > start all over again. > > The tipping point was the point at which the Internet stopped being > a toy and started being a necessity. > > I remember long enough ago that the argument "we don't need no steenking > Internet" had some validity. I heard it often enough when working > with our sales people back in the late 90's trying to sell businesses > on Internet connectivity. If we had had to go back to our customers in > 2002 or some such and tell them that this new Internet thing we had > just sold them a couple years earlier was no good anymore and they had > to change everything again, they would have tossed us out along with > all the other ISP's. > > Today of course, they are screwed and cannot do this or their competitors > will eat them alive. Customers now are demanding their vendors have > e-mail and online websites and all that and so in 5 or 6 years from now > when I tell them they have to toss everything and put in IPv6, they > will accept it without question. > > NAT basically took the entire IPv4 vs IPv6 argument and moved it > into the purvue of a bunch of techs who don't really have anything > to say about it in any case. When the last IPv4 assignment is out > the door those techs will be told by their CEO's to implement > IPv6 and shut up about it. > > You just watch North America and the conversion to High Def TV next > February. I have hardly heard a peep from friends of mine along the > lines of "why are we doing this" Every last one of them has swallowed > the line that they need to do it because Someone Who Knows More Than > They Do has told them to do it, and all of them are running out and > spending their income tax refund on big TV sets. Maybe one or two > of them has made the observation that there's no better programming > on Hi Def than on the old formats, you would think that might prompt the > question of why are we doing this - but no it hasn't. > > Consumers are getting used to the idea in high tech that things > change and your old stuff isn't going to work forever. Hell, a > 1960's rotary dial handset telephone still works perfectly fine > on the telephone network - when was the last time you saw one of > those? There's a case of a technical upgrade made when one was > not even required. > > >>> ... would it not be of interest for board candidates to state >>> >> their support >> >>> or not for [IPv6 advancement] in advance of the election? I >>> >> would think if >> >>> it's controversal for some people that doing so would increase voting >>> participation. >>> >> i guess, when you put it that way, it sounds like a fine idea. john curran >> has said repeatedly here in recent days that ARIN Denver is where he hopes >> this community will discuss ways to improve the election process. >> since our >> elections are governed by bylaws rather than by the NRPM, the >> policy process >> is not really the right way to change our election process. i think that a >> well reasoned proposal here (arin-discuss@) ideally to be followed up by an >> in-person proposal during the friday membership meeting, is the >> way to share >> your wisdom about getting candidates to answer some hot-button questions in >> advance of an election. >> >> > > OK, I'll see what I can put together. However, keep in mind this > is just my opinion on what would increase voting. I've operated from > the premise that controversy during an election increases turnout. > I haven't seen much posted to this thread. I don't know if this is > because everyone else kind of agrees with me or if no one else has > any different ideas. My experience - in following US politics for > the last 27 years, and in reading much about politics in history > of the US - is that people are attracted to elections that are > controversal, they want to vote in them, and as a result the vote > count increases. Thus, if you want to increase participation - be > more controversal. > > Now the key is, though, that the controversy must affect the voters > you want participating. Candidates arguing over the best color scheme > to use on the arin website likly won't increase participation, bikeshed > theory nonwithstanding. > > >>> ... I would rather favor the style of a moderated debate where >>> >> there would >> >>> be a question submittal period where folks (including the >>> >> candidates) could >> >>> submit questions to a moderator in advance, then the moderator >>> >> would combine >> >>> like questions and add a synthesis of issues off the mailing list, plus >>> issues that the prior Boards had deferred, and create a master >>> >> list of open >> >>> ended questions. Each candidate would respond to the moderator >>> >> how they saw >> >>> fit, the questions and responses would then be posted. >>> >> sounds good so far. will need more flesh. could the moderator be >> drawn from >> the membership or staff, or should it be an outside consultant? >> >> > > Ideally it should be someone from ARIN staff who I believe is > forbidden to vote in these elections. Ideally, that person should > be assisted by any outgoing board members NOT running for re-election, > along with board members who are not up for re-election during > that election. Ideally, the moderators involvement in the entire voting > process should be confined to this task only. > > If the process is an open one (ie: the raw > questions are available, the board minutes are available, the > list postings used are available) then it really does not matter > that much who the moderator is. > > Ted > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN > Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net > if you experience any issues. > From tedm at ipinc.net Wed Feb 6 20:27:32 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:27:32 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <47AA5247.5020002@internap.com> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:sleibrand at internap.com] >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 4:35 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting > >I don't much like the practice >in meatspace politics of creating/exaggerating controversy where none >really exists, As we don't have FOX News covering us I don't think this will be a problem ;-) Ted From bicknell at ufp.org Wed Feb 6 21:15:02 2008 From: bicknell at ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:15:02 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: References: <11096.1202240660@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <20080207021502.GB20133@ussenterprise.ufp.org> In a message written on Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 12:07:57PM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > Other controversial issues are fees charged to address holders (or the > lack thereof) the privacy vs societies need to know on whois records, > what constitutes utilization, etc. etc. In most instances ARIN simply > punts on these issues back to the membership. Well the membership is > arguing amongst themselves over these issues, and nobody is even putting > up some signs as to what the arguments are - so people waste endless time > redefining things, and nobody gets anywhere. While I like the idea of finding out more about the candidates this paragraph gives me cause for concern. To pick a concern from your paragraph of examples: whois privacy. In the current ARIN structure that is a policy decision. What is and is not in whois is specified in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), which is changed via the Internet Resources Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP). The Articles of Incorporation (http://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/artic_incorp.html) of ARIN provide a foundation for the IRPEP, Seventh Paragraph, Point 3: to secure united action and to represent the Internet community nationally and internationally; "to secure united action", which further shows up in the "principal" section of the IRPEP (and other places) (http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html): Policies are ratified by the ARIN Board of Trustees only after a full public discussion is held, review and recommendation by the ARIN Advisory Council is made, and there is evidence that a consensus for the policy has been reached among the community, in accordance with the process described in this document. Now, as an example. Let's assume there were six Board candidates who were all for changing the whois policy in the same way (actual direction unimportant). Let's further assume they were all voted into office, perhaps because of their whois views, perhaps for totally unrelated reasons. Under both the IRPEP and the articles of incorporation those six board members would be unable to make a change to the policy unless there was evidence it was "united action". If the membership is 90% against, but all 6 board members are for the action that is not good enough to act (in my view). That's not to say I think the Board or AC members views are unimportant. By virtue of their position their options may carry weight. They may be able to help "fast track" or "slow down" proposals through action or inaction. By contrast, the Board has a direct role in setting fees. Knowing a candidate's position on fees seems completely on point. After going down that long path, we can get to my real concern. I would feel bad if people voted for a candidate due to their views on a policy topic only to find the candidate unable to do anything about those views due to the policy process and a lack of community support. I would also be worried if a candidate was elected to the AC or Board because of their views chose to bend the rules on "united action" in an attempt to satisfy those who voted for them. Because of this I think debates need to be approached very carefully; in particularly for the AC (who's only purview is policy, in general) but also for the Board. Of course, if you don't like the restrictions of the Articles of Incorporation or the IRPEP, there are ways to change both of those as well. It would not be impossible to change to a more representative democracy sort of model for policy if that's what the membership really wanted. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ From tedm at ipinc.net Thu Feb 7 13:36:48 2008 From: tedm at ipinc.net (Ted Mittelstaedt) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:36:48 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: <20080207021502.GB20133@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: >-----Original Message----- >From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org] >Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:15 PM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-discuss at arin.net >Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting > > >After going down that long path, we can get to my real concern. I >would feel bad if people voted for a candidate due to their views >on a policy topic only to find the candidate unable to do anything >about those views due to the policy process and a lack of community >support. I would also be worried if a candidate was elected to the >AC or Board because of their views chose to bend the rules on "united >action" in an attempt to satisfy those who voted for them. Because >of this I think debates need to be approached very carefully; in >particularly for the AC (who's only purview is policy, in general) >but also for the Board. > The issue here is this. The Board is made up of individuals. We all know that it's impossible for anyone to be truly objective on an issue they care about (and I would assume the members of the Board would care about at least some of the issues before the ARIN board, else why would they even seek election?) The concern is that unless these biases are known in advance, the Board is subject to accusations that they are influencing policy "behind the scenes" Given your whois example, let's say that all Board members are in favor of increasing whois granularity and exposure, while the membership is still undecided. If this is a known fact -before- the election yet the board members are elected anyway, then when someone on the "anti-whois" camp accuses the Board of trying to do a rush job on pushing increased granularity on whois, the Board's response can simply be "No, we aren't doing that but I'll point out that you knew we were in favor of increased granularity and exposure yet you elected us anyway" In other words, you aren't going to convince the person on the anti-whois camp that the Board isn't trying to undermine his position - what you are doing, however, is making it clear to the person that his argument is -not- with the board, it's with the rest of the membership who is arguing over the whois issue, and who elected the Board. If you try to hide the Board members biases then it seems to me that accusations of the Board trying to sneak someting behind the scenes would influence more people, because people would always be wondering if it were true or not, and it ends up blowing up the accusation worse than it is. To make an analogy, if I go accuse the President of the United States of being a war-mongering, fiscally irresponsible leader, nobody really cares because the President was -elected- on a platform of war-mongering and fiscal irresponsibility. It's old news, buddy, and if I don't like it I need to go to the electorate and convince all the people who voted for him to toss him out. By contrast, if I accuse the President of the United States of being a commie-loving, evolution-loving, closet liberal, why then I can draw lots and lots of attention as people all focus on trying to find out if my accusations actually hold any water or not. I personally would feel more comfortable knowing what the Board's personal biases are. If the members were to say "I believe what your doing is wrong but your the boss and I'll do my best to implement it" then that gives me the power to decide if the particular person really is acting as I feel they should, of if they are acting along their own biases. I feel a lot more comfortable with that sort of person than with one who does their best to hide their personal views on things and just be a "yes-man" to my face. I feel if the Board were to show a bit more humanity as it were, that it would strengthen their credibility. If you follow commercial corporate boards at all, you will probably know that for the large public companies, the profiles of each board members are meticulously discussed in public by a varity of stock analysts all attempting to guess how they are going to jump next - and it appears not to hurt their credibility at all. It's human nature to attempt to dig into something that appears hidden, and suspect ulterior motives. I would suggest that the less mysterious the ARIN board is, the less that wild accusations about it's members will hold any water, and the less attention that will be paid to them. Ted From BillD at cait.wustl.edu Thu Feb 7 13:48:58 2008 From: BillD at cait.wustl.edu (Bill Darte) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:48:58 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: References: <20080207021502.GB20133@ussenterprise.ufp.org> Message-ID: > > The issue here is this. The Board is made up of individuals. > We all know that it's impossible for anyone to be truly > objective on an issue they care about (and I would assume the > members of the Board would care about at least some of the > issues before the ARIN board, else why would they even seek election?) > > The concern is that unless these biases are known in advance, > the Board is subject to accusations that they are influencing > policy "behind the scenes" > > Given your whois example, let's say that all Board members > are in favor of increasing whois granularity and exposure, > while the membership is still undecided. If this is a known > fact -before- the election yet the board members are elected > anyway, then when someone on the "anti-whois" camp accuses > the Board of trying to do a rush job on pushing increased > granularity on whois, the Board's response can simply be "No, > we aren't doing that but I'll point out that you knew we were > in favor of increased granularity and exposure yet you > elected us anyway" In other words, you aren't going to > convince the person on the anti-whois camp that the Board > isn't trying to undermine his position - what you are doing, > however, is making it clear to the person that his argument > is -not- with the board, it's with the rest of the membership > who is arguing over the whois issue, and who elected the Board. The Board does NOT make policy.... I am all for disclosure however. I think a statement of why they are running is good and a brief bio, too. > If you try to hide the Board members biases then it seems to > me that accusations of the Board trying to sneak someting > behind the scenes would influence more people, because people > would always be wondering if it were true or not, and it ends > up blowing up the accusation worse than it is. > > To make an analogy, if I go accuse the President of the > United States of being a war-mongering, fiscally > irresponsible leader, nobody really cares because the > President was -elected- on a platform of war-mongering and > fiscal irresponsibility. It's old news, buddy, and if I > don't like it I need to go to the electorate and convince all > the people who voted for him to toss him out. > > By contrast, if I accuse the President of the United States > of being a commie-loving, evolution-loving, closet liberal, > why then I can draw lots and lots of attention as people all > focus on trying to find out if my accusations actually hold > any water or not. > > I personally would feel more comfortable knowing what the > Board's personal biases are. If the members were to say "I > believe what your doing is wrong but your the boss and I'll > do my best to implement it" then that gives me the power to > decide if the particular person really is acting as I feel > they should, of if they are acting along their own biases. I > feel a lot more comfortable with that sort of person than > with one who does their best to hide their personal views on > things and just be a "yes-man" to my face. > > I feel if the Board were to show a bit more humanity as it > were, that it would strengthen their credibility. > > If you follow commercial corporate boards at all, you will > probably know that for the large public companies, the > profiles of each board members are meticulously discussed in > public by a varity of stock analysts all attempting to guess > how they are going to jump next - and it appears not to hurt > their credibility at all. > > It's human nature to attempt to dig into something that > appears hidden, and suspect ulterior motives. I would > suggest that the less mysterious the ARIN board is, the less > that wild accusations about it's members will hold any water, > and the less attention that will be paid to them. > > Ted > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at > info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From iis-arin at impulse.net Thu Feb 7 14:53:03 2008 From: iis-arin at impulse.net (Jay Hennigan) Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 11:53:03 -0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47AB619F.7000107@impulse.net> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > The issue here is this. The Board is made up of individuals. We > all know that it's impossible for anyone to be truly objective on > an issue they care about (and I would assume the members of the Board > would care about at least some of the issues before the ARIN board, > else why would they even seek election?) > > The concern is that unless these biases are known in advance, the > Board is subject to accusations that they are influencing policy > "behind the scenes" [snippage] > I personally would feel more comfortable knowing what the Board's > personal biases are. If the members were to say "I believe what > your doing is wrong but your the boss and I'll do my best to > implement it" then that gives me the power to decide if the > particular person really is acting as I feel they should, of if > they are acting along their own biases. I feel a lot more comfortable > with that sort of person than with one who does their best to hide > their personal views on things and just be a "yes-man" to my > face. Agreed, but with Google and other archives the constituency can do its own due diligence on such matters. This is particularly true with regard to candidates who have a long history of involvement in Internet development. To expand on your example, accusing Paul Vixie of being a closet spam-supporter (or a Mafia boss) is on a par with accusing the President of the United States of being a commie-loving, evolution-loving, closet liberal. This tends to identify the accuser as a raving loon. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV From Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com Thu Feb 7 15:15:23 2008 From: Lee.Howard at stanleyassociates.com (Howard, W. Lee) Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 15:15:23 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] voting In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <369EB04A0951824ABE7D8BAC67AF9BB4087D4E23@CL-S-EX-1.stanleyassociates.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net > [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt > We all know that it's impossible for anyone to be truly > objective on an issue they care about (and I would assume the > members of the Board would care about at least some of the > issues before the ARIN board, else why would they even seek election?) I twitch whenever you say, "We all know. . ." Maybe they seek election because someone they respect asked them to run, and they feel an obligation of service to the Internet community. > The concern is that unless these biases are known in advance, > the Board is subject to accusations that they are influencing > policy "behind the scenes" >From my reading of the IRPEP, http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html the Board's influence on policy is limited: The Board of Trustees will consider Advisory Council recommendations and last call petitions at their next regularly scheduled Board meeting or may call a Special Board Meeting for this purpose. The Board of Trustees may decide to return the proposal to the Advisory Council for clarification. When the Board requests no further clarification for a given proposal, it may adopt or reject the proposal. The Board of Trustees will announce its decision with the Board of Trustees minutes. The Board can also enact emergency policies if needed before the next public policy meeting. I don't see much ability to influence policy. For that matter, the budget is approved by the Board after vetting by staff and the Finance Committee. There's not all that much ability for an individual to affect money, either. > I personally would feel more comfortable knowing what the > Board's personal biases are. It would not be possible to articulate all of my opinions on every topic that might come before the Board in a three- year term. > If you follow commercial corporate boards at all, you will > probably know that for the large public companies, the > profiles of each board members are meticulously discussed in > public by a varity of stock analysts all attempting to guess > how they are going to jump next - and it appears not to hurt > their credibility at all. They also get stock and paychecks for their trouble. ARIN Board members get abused on mailing lists and reimbursement of expenses to ARIN meetings (which in most cases would be reimbursed by their day jobs even if they weren't Board members). Oh, and colored ribbons on their badges at public policy meetings. > It's human nature to attempt to dig into something that > appears hidden, and suspect ulterior motives. I would > suggest that the less mysterious the ARIN board is, the less > that wild accusations about it's members will hold any water, > and the less attention that will be paid to them. I'm in favor of openness and transparency, and I'll answer any question about my opinions or service on the Board. I think I'm approachable at meetings, and I go out of my way to meet first-time attendees. I would find a live webcast roast-a-thon, or whatever, so intimidating that I would decline nomination to future elections. I may not be alone in that, and I don't think that the process needs fewer candidates. A questionnaire from the NomCom inviting a brief essay on each of 3-5 questions would be fine, but I doubt many people would read the answers. I will point out that candidates get a few minutes to introduce themselves at the Fall members meeting, and that could be enhanced. Perhaps a few more minutes, including time to opine on a few carefully-selected topics. Lee > > Ted