[arin-ppml] Accusation of fundamental conflict of interest/ IP address policy pitched directly to ICANN

Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo carlosm3011 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 30 11:16:36 EDT 2011

How is this alleged "conflict of interest" different from a company's
stakeholders' "conflict of interest" ? Aren't they able to make
impartial or even good decisions because they are the ones who also
own the company ? The reverse could also be argued almost on the same
grounds. They will make good decisions because they own [the
company|IP space].



On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 8:41 AM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with JC, the ASO and constituent RIRs are quite capable of
>> dealing with this AND manage potential conflict of interest issues,
>> but I wouldn't be surprised if a letter to NTIA was the next step
>> after an ICANN reply.  I also agree that a wider discussion might be
>> useful.
> Yes....  however... what would be the venue for a wider discussion?
> And where/how can the community make its opinion clear on the proposal,
> with decision,  and with impunity against such frivolous "conflict of interest"
> claims.
> The fellow comes up with a proposal to basicaly do away with the RIR system
> of address allocations,  encouraging instead some sort of competitive
> free-for-all
> with no RIRs/regional policy authorities, and claims there's a
> conflict of interest
> for the RIR communities themselves to consider this.
> This is something like coming up with a proposal to abolish the vote;
> and arguing the ratification/rejection by a ballot measure or elected
> reps. are unacceptable conflict  of interest,   because the proposal
> eliminates elected representatives,  thus bringing the voters into a
> conflict of interest.
> The problem with this "conflict of interest" theory is the RIR community
> members _are_ the resource holders;  the RIRs are supposed to execute
> good stewardship of their region's numbering resources, the RIR's
> interests should be the same as the community's.
> There are potentially grave stability issues with a "free for all"
> system.
> And the concerns of the numerous RIR community members who
> might reject the extreme proposal,  on various grounds should not
> be distilled down to "Just ARIN's view" of the situation.
> But I suppose by not even bringing it to the ARIN public policy discussion,
> perhaps the proposal authors hope to avoid having serious community input?
> So certain of rejection that they _preemptively_  avoid  the RIR communities,
> and try to slip something in via another organization related to the RIRs?
> --
> -JH
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list