[arin-discuss] Good Governance

Sat May 31 21:29:11 EDT 2008

DA> From: Dean Anderson
DA> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Good Governance

====

DA> Recall that Dreger, before falling off into irrelevant claims,
DA> asserts that my criticisms of ARIN management for disregarding the
DA> rules is somehow an ad hominem attack.

I stated that your assertion of "no regards to rules or the laws" is a
personal attack -- unless you have some sort of proof.  If you'd like me
to provide an example of one of your attacks...

DA> I think it is no coincidence that Dreger and Plzak are associated
DA> through NANOG. Many of the people making fabrications against me are
DA> associated through NANOG.  Indeed, I see Steve Bertrand is also
DA> participating recently in NANOG.

...I'll point out your circumstantial ad hominem attack right there.

1. What "association"?  I read, and post to NANOG.  So do you.  I have
attended one NANOG meeting.  I believe you have not.  Therefore, the
difference between you and I is that I have attended one NANOG meeting.
Moreover, I represented an ARIN member organization well _before_ I ever
attendend NANOG.  The "Eddy is part of the NANOG empire" assertion is
not borne out by facts.

2. You argue that NANOG participation is not beneficial to ARIN.  I'll
rehash that inline below.

3. NANOG tends to be comprised of network operators.  Perhaps you are
correct: It _is_ no coincidence that network ops would be more affected
by, and have greater interest in, ARIN.

Republicans traditionally vote more than democrats.  Does this mean that
there is some republican conspiracy in many elections?

You are attacking _people_ in an effort to discredit the positions that
[_you_ assert] they represent.  The proper tactic would be to assert the
validity of your _countering_ claims.

By the way:  I'm also associated with the Nazi party by way of German
ancestry.  (Never mind that the last of my ancestors immigrated during
the Weimar Republik, and such beliefs have never been held by myself
nor any family members.  Oh, and does this mean that Godwin's Law is
invoked?)

====

DA> NANOG is a very small organization and only a small fraction of ARIN
DA> members participate in NANOG.  Yet somehow, all of the ARIN Board
DA> Members and the ARIN CEO are associated with this small organization,

Let's get down to brass tacks.  Define "NANOG association", using a
definition that includes the entire board.  Now, enumerate people who
have run for the ARIN board; who is, and who is not, "NANOG-associated"?

Does anyone have ARIN attendance records handy?  I'd like to know what
percentage of ARIN attendees, participants, and voters, meets Dean's
non-"NANOG associated" criteria.

Again, you're just making circumstantial ad hominem attacks.

DA> and are doing things with ARIN money that the ARIN membership
DA> doesn't do and probably wouldn't do.

Let's examine what NANOG does.  It provides a meeting for network
operators, largely from North America.  It includes presentations, and
smaller meetings for "birds of a feather" (peering, security, et
cetera).

Now, let's assume that "the great, evil NANOG" vanished.

Do you assert that the ARIN membership would have _no interest_ in the
sort of meetings that NANOG provides?  It appears so; and, if so, I
reject that position.

Do you assert that "non-operational" ARIN staff should have no knowledge
of network operations?  If so, I reject that position as well.
Effective governance requires knowledge of what one is governing, yes?
It is very logical that ARIN staff should understand the technology and
the people it serves.

I submit that, if NANOG did not exist, ARIN should perform the functions
NANOG currently performs.  Moreover, I posit that duplication of effort
would be irresponsible; ARIN should _not_ attempt to do what NANOG
already is doing.

Perhaps NANOG should be a wholly-ARIN effort.  Then there would be no
debate on money being "transferred to another organization" -- only on
"money being spent on education and outreach".  Would that assuage your
concerns?

====

DA> Since you are new, you may not know that all of the ARIN Board
DA> Members and CEO Ray Plzak are associated with NANOG, and all have a
DA> conflict of interest.

And what is that conflict of interest?

I posit that cigarette smokers have a conflict of interest with respect
to cigarette taxes.  Therefore, cigarette smokers should not have a say
in cigarette taxes, because they likely will choose a position that does
not benefit everyone.

DA> ARIN management is paying NANOG by sending a large number of ARIN
DA> employees to NANOG:  employees such as the executive secretary,
DA> whose jobs have nothing whatsoever to do with network operations;

I do a fair amount of consulting work for companies in several
industries.  I've often observed executive secretaries being encouraged
to understand the industry with which they are dealing.  What do you
propose as a more cost-effective alternative?

DA> employees including Resource Analysts who decide allocation decisions
DA> and who could be ethically compromised by personal relationships with
DA> network operations persons who make allocation requests to ARIN.

Again, what do you propose as an alternative?  I welcome your proposals.
Being angry about the status quo is well and good.  Please, propose
another way.  (It's a presidential election year in the United States,
and I've already had my fill of "trust me because I can point out that
other people are evil" rhetoric.)

====

DA> We have also discovered anomalies in the allocation of IP Address
DA> blocks:  Some persons have received allocations in as little as 2

Two-hour allocations?  Sign me up...

DA> hours. Of two persons who reported these short times, one is
DA> associated with NANOG.  The other says he is not associated with
DA> NANOG, but didn't identify the company receiving the allocation in 2
DA> hours. ARIN has not released any information on the allocation
DA> times, and ARIN management stonewalls investigation.

I'm also curious about allocation times and effort required.  I think
that would be most useful in evaluating allocation dues.

====

DA> Myself and other ARIN members also oppose the taking of Legacy IP
DA> Address Space under the false pretense of "protection" from the
DA> unjustified removal of IN-ADDR and WHOIS services.  Before ARIN took
DA> this controversial action (without the approval of the membership),

Is ARIN a democracy or a republic?  Are you suggesting a referendum on
what to do with legacy allocations?

DA> members asked ARIN to get a formal legal opinion on its right to do

"Members".  How many?  If I may be allowed to make a circumstantial ad
hominem attack of my own:  What non-legacy holders take the same
position as you?  Would catering to their interests be in the best
interest of the broader ARIN membership?

DA> this. ARIN did not get a formal legal opinion as requested, and does
DA> not appear to have seriously investigated the legal issue.

DA> We assert that ARIN has no right to remove essential government
DA> services from Legacies who do not transfer their property to ARIN,

Are IP allocations considered property?  I was under the impression that
they are not.

DA> and thus no right the threaten such removal or offer "protection"
DA> from such removal. Indeed, ARIN has not given Legacies _any_
DA> indication of their property rights in the matter, nor any
DA> indication that Legacies have a right to the government functions
DA> performed by ARIN in the maintenance of Legacy registration records,

This brings about an interesting point:  Under what [quasi]-jurisdiction
do legacy allocations fall?

If ARIN, it would seem this is an ARIN policy matter.

If not ARIN, then where?

DA> IN-ADDR services, and WHOIS services. Legacies understandably feel
DA> threatened by the prospect of losing these services and ARIN has no
DA> right to remove these services. We believe that ARIN should be
DA> investigated for violation of the Hobbs Act in these activities.

I encourage those interested to search.

e.g., Google ==> "Hobbs Act" site:usdoj.gov

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.