[arin-discuss] Status of Investigations

[Dean Anderson]

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008, Jay Hennigan wrote:

> 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.]
> 
> Does it?  Where?

A letter from ARIN.

> > I am indeed following the bylaws.  An investigation of misconduct needs
> > to be completed before we can reasonably ask members to vote on removal
> > for cause; Evidence and cause for removal needs to be discussed with the
> > membership.  Your demand to "take it off list" is a transparent effort
> > to prevent the membership from being informed of misconduct and to
> > prevent the membership from consequently being inclined to vote for the
> > removal of members of the Board of Directors.
> 
> Then specifically state the misconduct with regard to the performance of 
> duties as an ARIN trustee.  "He ran a stop sign in 2001, here's a copy 
> of the traffic ticket", has nothing whatsoever to do with his present 
> performance with regard to ARIN or any misconduct with regards to his 
> acts as a Board member.
> 
> "I caught him stealing from ARIN as a trustee" would be relevant.  "Some 
> lawyer said that his company picked on his client's company and 
> convinced a judge to make them stop temporarily, and this was a long 
> time ago" wouldn't.  Get it?

We aren't talking traffic tickets.

> > "According to a new entry in the Spamhaus Rokso record for Scott 
> > Richter, three "former spamfighters" had been discover on Richter's 
> > payroll: former MAPS employees Kelly Molloy (Thompson) and Pete 
> > Popovich, as well as Ohio anti-spammer Karen Hoffmann. The Rokso entry 
> > ROK2888, stated that the three were employed by Richter to handle 
> > network abuse complaints and to perform "listwashing"---the task of 
> > removing angry spam recipients from OptInRealBig.com's mailing lists.
> >   [...] which represented 'a depressing reversal of ethics'
> > "Spam Kings" pg 254, by Brian McWilliams, Orielly (2003)
> 
> That's even more far-fetched.  "According to Scott Richter (consider the 
> source), 

Scott Richter isn't the source of this information. Perhaps you could
consider not fabricating quotes with fictitious sources.

I notice that you cut out the fact of Mr. Vixie being on the board of a
spammer while directing MAPS. Doesn't his particpation in spamming seem
to be a conflict of interest, a "depressing reversal of ethics"?

> These "facts" have been available for quite some time, and the time for 
> you to bring them up would have been while you were campaigning for the 
> board seat against him.  Even if true, none of this is relevant to his 
> performance on the ARIN board.  

This issue is not cited a relevant to _performance_; It's cited as being
relevant to character.

Board member performance has to do with conflict of interest in wasting
roughly $300,000+ of ARIN money on NANOG, sending 22 employees to NANOG,
including the HR Exec Assistant, Software Engineers, Database Admins,
Windows System Admins, etc.  The total comes to an improper income of
some $95,000 for NANOG, which improperly benefits ARIN Board Members.  
Since these transfers aren't fair to ARIN, and they involve undisclosed
conflict of interest, the transfers are in bad faith.  Bad faith
invalidates the business judgement rule defense, and enables recovery
from the Board Members.

[The rough $300,000 estimate is as follows: A $50,000 check + ~$45,000
in fees, + ~135,000 in travel, hotel, etc + ~80 weeks of lost work for
22 employees equals about $300,000 or so.  I'm sure ARIN finance and the
ARIN auditor can get an exact number, but ARIN hasn't responded so far.  
We should be able to improve the estimate with a more detailed analysis
of the ARIN expenses, even without exact figures.]

Board member performance is failing to oversee ARIN management and
ensure that there is a marketing plan and marketing metrics which
establish and measure the effectiveness of VON and other booths, rather
than relying on financially-interested sources such as the VON founder
to tell ARIN that he thinks spending money on VON is a good thing for
ARIN to do.

Board member performance is the failure to ensure that Board Member
candidates are properly qualified and of good character.

Board member performance is the failure to obtain a legal opinion on the
Legacy RSA and the scheme to threaten Legacies with denial of services
unless they transferred rights to ARIN through the Legacy RSA.

Board member performance is the failure to prevent ARIN employees from
becoming too familiar with NANOG participants, and the failure to ensure
that business contacts with NANOG are entirely professional and at arm's
length, rather than on personal relationships.  Neither Board members
nor ARIN management have responded to whether they have ensured that
ARIN properly trains employees in ethics and that employees are properly
trained to avoid decisions clouded by close personal relationships which
may present a conflict of interest.

These performance issues aren't limited to Board Member Vixie.  All 7
board members may have conflicts of interest; 6 of 7 definitely have
conflicts of interest; the one board member whose conflict is still
uncertain, simply hasn't responded to questions about his compensation
for 3 speaking engagements at NANOG. The refusal to respond about his
conflict of interest doesn't reflect well, either.  And all 7 board
members are responsible for failing to oversee management.

Hopefully, that clears up your confusion.

		--Dean



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