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

Amy Potter amybpotter at gmail.com
Thu Jul 11 13:35:00 EDT 2019

Hi Jordi,

It sounds like there was some miscommunication between us, and I appologize
for that.

>From what I understood of our conversation about the AC minutes, you felt I
had maligned your character in the meeting by saying that you had some
nefarious alternative motive for the proposal other than preventing
hijacking. I recall appologizing and telling you this was not my intention
and that I would check out the minutes and try and have them corrected if
that was what was recorded.

As you quoted, what was recorded was "AP stated that she believed that the
author was using ARIN to solve their problem." What I meant was that I
believed the author was using the ARIN policy development process to solve
the problem of BGP hijacking, which I believe is not a problem that falls
within the scope of ARIN policy. I chose not to try and have the minutes
changed or make a public statement because, given the context of the
discussion taking place at the meeting, I believed others reading the
minutes were likely to interpret the statement as intended.

However Jordi clearly still feels this is not the obvious interpretation,
so I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I do not believe that
Jordi was trying to do anything nefarious. I believe he was trying to solve
a real problem that exists, and that his goals were noble. I simply think
that ARIN policy is not the appropriate vehicle.

As for the statement about a previous LACNIC policy, Jordi is correct that
I was mistaken about that. There was a proposal in 2016 that struck me as
being out of scope in a very similar way as this one.  It turns out the
proposal I was reminded of was actually about settling IPv4-IPv6
connectivity disputes not about BGP hijacking. My appologies for the mixup.

I do not think the minutes need to be altered, because they accurately
reflect my memory of what was said.  I appologize if anyone interpreted my
statements as maligning Jordi's character. Nothing of the sort was intended.


On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:31 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML <
arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:

> As I've said in my email, this is not about the proposal, it just reminded
> me that it has been 3 months, since the minutes where publish and they
> haven't been corrected.
> I've already raised this when I saw the minutes for the first time. It is
> not my fault if the AC has not corrected it, or publicly asked excuses. I
> was told at that time that the minutes are draft, and will be confirmed
> later on, even if I explicitly said the same you indicate "how is possible
> they are draft if it says they have been reviewed".
> Actually I'm happy if the minutes are not changed, but it should be
> publicly acknowledge that they contain false information and that should be
> somehow attached also to the published minutes.
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
> El 11/7/19 17:21, "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia at gmail.com> escribió:
>     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).
>     [snip]
>     > 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...
>     https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2019_0516/
>     >" “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."
>     --
>     -JH
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
> communication and delete it.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190711/9a93923b/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list