[arin-ppml] Board Rejects "ARIN-prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation” Due to Scope

Jimmy Hess mysidia at gmail.com
Thu Jul 11 11:21:00 EDT 2019

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
<arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
> Hi all, and specially the AC (as I think a response is required),
> Reviewing this email, I just realized that the minutes of the 10th April 2019 minutes are still published as originally.
> There are two points that I've discussed in emails and in person with several AC members, which were clearly false and unappropriated and even one of them (at least in Spain), a criminal act (slander and damage to one's image).
> 1. "AP stated that at the LACNIC meeting has discussed it and they dismissed it as out of scope".
> -> This is totally false. Such thing never happened in LACNIC or any other RIR. I think this requires a public correction.

I'm sure your seemingly frivolous allegation of a criminal act by AC members
will NOT be appreciated by anyone.   If you believe legitimate errors have been
made,  then I would suggest  you bring up what you have without using
language that would be considered as poisoning the well.

Anyways, the AC minutes are moot regarding outcome of the policy proposal,
as the BoT  has looked at it and agreed as the proposal Prop 266 clearly was
way outside the defined scope according to the ARIN policy development process;
adjustments to discussion minutes would not mean that a decided action
is reversed.

I don't actually know whether that is false or not,  but even if
something brought
to the discussion turned out to be inaccurate, that does not make the minutes
themself incorrect  -- the minutes should keep an accurate record of what
was said/done;   even if something that was said turned out to be an error
or mistake.

> I talked to Amy Potter (AP), and she confirmed that she never said that,

Oh, really?    Well, you can refer to published AC May minutes  that
says official
April minutes were approved as-is without objections,  in other words the
people in attendance at next meeting would have agreed that the record was
an accurate representation of what business transpired at that meeting.

I would imagine if the AC were concerned enough about who or what
exact discussion point was brought up: you would have a published
statement or special business at their meeting to request an extra
note in the minutes.

More than 2 months and meetings later is probably a quite inappropriate time
to suggest  further modification to official records of a proceeding that are
already approved and finalized;   at this point their meeting participants are
very likely to have gaps in their personal memories regarding the minute
details of their discussions, who said what, etc.  A member might not even
recollect exactly their own words,  unless  they have a recording
to refer to,  as in, the minutes...

>" “The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 10 April 2019, as written.”
>The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
>The motion carried with no objections."


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list