[arin-ppml] Board of Trustees Consideration Petition for ARIN -2020 -2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

[Tom Pruitt]

               Stratus Networks is officially petitioning the Board of Trustees on policy ARIN -2020 -2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16 against reversion back to draft status and moving to have it  sent directly to the Board of Trustees for immediate approval.

               We are requesting that all in favor of this proposal voice their approval on the PPML.

Per section 2.4 of the PDP:

2.4. Petition for Board of Trustees Consideration
Any member of the community may initiate a Board of Trustees Consideration Petition if they are dissatisfied with the Advisory Council's failure to act within the allotted time (60 days) to send a Recommended Draft Policy in last call to the Board of Trustees for consideration. A successful petition for Board of Trustees Consideration requires expressions of petition support from at least 25 different people from 25 different organizations. If successful, this petition will send the Recommended Draft Policy from last call to the Board of Trustees for consideration.


            In our opinion, this proposal clearly met the criteria necessary for adoption by ARIN.  Our reasoning is outlined below.


            In order to get new policy, as drawn directly from the PDP:

Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy

Internet number resource policy must satisfy three important principles, specifically: 1) enabling fair and impartial number resource administration, 2) technically sound (providing for uniqueness and usability of number resources), and 3) supported by the community.



  1.  Enabling fair and impartial number resource administration:

            In the discussion about fairness, much of the dissenting discussion related to how this would negatively affect the current organizations on the list.  While that question has been answered, that it will have no effect, it is a great and valid question that should be asked and answered. It is the entire point of this proposal.  The same question should have been addressed when the waitlist was changed. How can one rationalize that this would be unfair to the current people on the list, but not use the same rationale on the people that were on the original waitlist?   If one does not believe grandfathering is fair, how can they ever support a proposal that has grandfathering in it without contradicting themselves?

            For the record, AC council member Joe Provo waited until the meeting after last call to quote the definition of fairness to the council.  We believe that he mis-quoted that definition.  To the extent that anyone relied on his definition, we would like to set the record straight.


As taken directly from the minutes:
            "All policies and practices relating to the use of public address space should apply fairly      and equitably to all existing and potential members of the Internet community, regardless           of their location, nationality, size or any other factor."

Actual definition directly from the PDP:

            "Internet number resources must be managed with appropriate stewardship and care.         Internet number resource policy must provide for fair and impartial management of           resources according to unambiguous guidelines and criteria. All policy statements must      be clear, complete, and concise, and any criteria that are defined in policy must be simple and obtainable. Policy statements must be unambiguous and not subject to        varying degrees of interpretation."





  1.  Technically Sound:



I do not think anyone has questioned that this is a technically sound proposal.


  1.  Community Support:
            There was overwhelming community support for this policy. In fact, we cannot find another policy with this much support going back years. This was wide ranging, broad community support.

            In the PUBLIC MEETING that was held, there were 42 in favor and 14 against. While there is no way of knowing who voted in favor and who voted against, Stratus has asked the few posters on the PPML that Stratus did introduce to the ARIN process and ZERO were present for this meeting.  Stratus does not know a single one of the 42 people that supported this policy.

            By our unofficial count of the PPML, there were 30 different organizations that supported this proposal and 13 that did not.  Of the 13 voices of dissent, 6 did not voice a word of dissent until last call.  That is almost 50% of the dissenting voices holding their argument of dissent until LAST CALL. How is that not an abuse of the system?

            Arin AC Council Chris Tacit brought this up in the council meeting:

            "CT cautioned the Council not to inadvertently allow the misuse of the last call process.          He pointed out that a Public Policy Meeting (PPM) was held, and a substantial part of       the community supported this policy. He noted that there was a small dissenting group,           but there was also significant support expresed. CT stated that additional dissenting         voices lobbied on PPML after the PPM and very late in the process, and does not       appear to reflective of any overall change in community sentiment. He stated that given   that the policy was not strongly opposed during the actual process, he did not believe            that the Council should derail the policy and that it should be put to a vote. He stated that       he was concerned that the dissenting comments that were received at the last-minute       were not reflective on a real change in sentiment."

            The voices of dissent are mostly regulars on ARIN commenting.  It appears that 5 of the 13 are current or former AC council member.   While these voices are absolutely important, why should their opinion be valued more than that of any other? Why would they represent the "broad" community and others would not?

              AC council Owen DeLong states:

               "OD disagreed, stating that he believed that there is enough opposition. He             pointed out that the term is 'broad support'. He noted that there was a great deal of             positive commenting on the PPML, and in community participation. It was a grass    roots effort for the most part. He believed it does not represent a broad segment          of the   community, but rather narrow. OD stated he would vote against advancing the policy   forward."

            We need to address this now because we believe he is flat out wrong and this is a baseless statement.   First, who cares who posted and what their motivation was if they are valid voices?  Why does any valid poster or supporter not represent broad support and why is that a decision that an AC council member can make about them? Secondly, the insinuation that the broad support came from Stratus customers or supporters of Stratus at all is absolutely a false statement.  It seems rooted in some of the posts on PPML.  There were multiple defamatory accusations about who these voices of support belong to, if they are real, and even accusations that Stratus incented them to support.  Our legal team will deal with the libelous attacks, but to the extent that those statements were used or relied on by the AC council, as appears to be the case based on Mr. DeLong's statement, it is imperative that we address them now.

            In no particular order:

  1.  Stratus did not incent a single organization with a SINGLE THING!!!!



  1.  Stratus did not encourage anyone to "spam" the policy list.  We simply educated some organizations on how ARIN works and what happened to us.  They formed their own opinion. Nevertheless, those organizations only represent a small fraction of the support that this policy has received.



  1.  There is an entire thread titled "Astroturfing". Stratus categorically denies this malicious accusation. Stratus does not even know most of the supporters to this policy.

For reference, Websters defines Astroturfing as, "organized activity that is intended to create a false impression of a widespread, spontaneously arising, grassroots movement in support of or in opposition to something (such as a political policy) but that is in reality initiated and controlled by a concealed group or organization (such as a corporation)"



  1.  Of the few that Stratus does know, many are actually competitors of Stratus, not customers.   They have nothing to gain.   How is an ISP not a member of the "broad" community, whether Stratus knows them or not?  News Flash - Stratus knows most ISP's.



  1.  The support was not "manufactured".  These are real and valid organizations voicing real and valid opinions. To claim that the support is manufactured is baseless.

  1.  Stratus has not conspired to commit any fraud of any kind.  This is again a baseless and malicious attack on Stratus.



  1.  More often than not, the poster identifies themselves, so to post "who are all these people" makes no sense. They are who they said they are. Just because they are not regulars does not make them fake.



  1.  Getting voices to the board was exactly what Stratus was tasked with doing. We attended ARIN 44 and this is exactly what the leadership directed us to do. Go educate people on how ARIN works. Give them the same education that you just got. This whole thing is about much more than just this proposal. This is about what we view as a small clique of people that are controlling ARIN.  We are trying to change that. If you have a problem with new voices, then we view you as the problem.  This is not a private club.



  1.  There are accusations that Stratus does not have alternative plans or this is about money. How dare someone make that accusation.  They know nothing of our motivation for this proposal and they most definitely know nothing of our plans or lack thereof.  Stratus has already spent more than the going rate for a /22 in dealing with this and will continue to spend to get this right.   For the record, we made our motivation very clear at ARIN 44 in front of everyone present.  Additionally, we were approved and on the original list for a /19.   We proposed a /22 in this proposal.    If this was just about Stratus, why wouldn't we have proposed for the /19 that we were on the list for?

            It may not be clear to all, but it sure appears to us that there is a very small group of people that are actually active on the PPML.  Any research on previous proposals leads to this conclusion.  These same voices appear over and over again.  Those were, by and large, the same voices that dissented against this proposal.  Noting again that almost 40% of the dissention was from current or former AC council members.   Why is it that they represent the "broad" community and everyone else does not? I would argue with Mr. DeLong the exact opposite of his statement is true.  This small group of dissenters does not represent the "broad" community, but rather, just a small group of dissenters that are active in ARIN, some of which are current and former AC council members.  Anyone thinking their opinion is more important than another's is a problem.  You might not agree with that opinion, but that does not make it an invalid opinion.  Just because Stratus introduced an organization to how this process works does not mean that their voice does not count.  Any accusation that Stratus incented or that these organization took something for their voice is a baseless, malicious attack on both Stratus and the organization that voiced support.  It is hard to justify how ARIN is tolerating this behavior.  We have been attacked as if we are the bad guy here.  We have done nothing wrong!!!!  We are trying our hardest to address what we perceive was an error made by the Board of Arin that negatively affected 26 organizations by not addressing this.

            Bullying should never be allowed.  The current ARIN environment is blasting anyone new with a voice, attacking them as if they don't matter.  Going against their rationale for having an opinion at all rather than even address what their opinion is.  Just shut them up and make them go away. This is not good for ARIN or the community.  A voice is a voice.  So what if Stratus knows the ISP?  Stratus knows a ton of ISPs.  That does not mean that their opinion doesn't count as support.   So what if a few of Stratus' customers posted?  They have IP blocks and they are real organizations with real opinions and absolutely with nothing to gain. Who cares why a valid member of the community posts an opinion?  The debate should be about the opinion itself and not the poster and their unknown motivations. What better way to discourage new involvement than tell them their opinion is worthless on the PPML and then have the AC council back up those statements?  And to wait until last call to even voice the dissent.   No better way to keep this group small and not have the broad community participating? Just because it appears a group of people do not like outsiders does not mean that the system should support it.

            ARIN has a set of rules and they should be obeyed:

 "The ARIN Mailing List Appropriate Usage Policy specifically prohibits statements that include foul language and/or personal character attacks, statements that show disrespect for other participants (including ARIN), and statements that are slanderous or libelous."


            Below is just a SAMPLE of comments that I have been referring to.  In our opinion, these comments should not be tolerated, as they fall directly into the categories of personal character attacks, statements of disrespect and are slanderous and libelous.


"I oppose any special treatment being given to organizations that encourage
their customers to spam the policy list with messages in support of such
special treatment."


"I also do not like those that have sent their customers to this list to
lobby for receiving this space instead of the "new entrants" to up the
count of those that are in favor in an effort to promote adoption of this
proposal."


"There are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this policy, and 5 against." If these ISPs continue to lobby their "customers" to reply on this thread in favor of the policy, will that hold any weight?"


"I'm not sure how to say this in the most diplomatic way possible, but
why not explore other options just in case? Is an org that fails to
consider backup plans really something that rises to the level of a
community problem that needs a special policy?"
"Who are all these people that "support the Stratus stance" out of
nowhere and do they have any opinion on why they support it or know what
they're supporting?"


"Subject: [arin-ppml] Stratus astroturfing

You can assume that Stratus (Tom Pruitt, Network Engineer, Stratus Networks) has incentivized their customers/vendors to advocate for the policy. They will likely obtain additional IPv4 space if the policy goes into effect."



"I believe these
actions show that Stratus may be conspiring to commit fraud through
manufactured support of a policy for their own benefit, and not the
benefit of the community."



"I am finding it hard to separate the merits (or lack thereof) of this
policy proposal from the motivations behind it"



"It is a public list, but such a display of manufactured "support"
appears to be an attempt to manipulate policy in a way that is not for
the benefit of the community it's supposed to serve. Often when someone
wants a policy to happen so badly that they're willing to try to tip the
scales in their favor by any means necessary, it usually means it's not
good for the rest of us."


            Finally, when given the opportunity to explain their rationale behind their vote against, 4 of the 6 AC council members have not responded.  Seems like a fair question, but for whatever reason, 4 have not replied.  This is the next thing we are going to go after.  The AC meetings should be available for all to listen to. Why are they held behind closed doors? How does that benefit the community to have to rely on abbreviated minutes? Additionally, if an AC council member is voting against anything, we believe they should have to explain their rationale. Why didn't it meet one of the criteria?  In our opinion they are elected to champion and safeguard the system, not override it.  Why shouldn't they have to provide an explanation to the community about a vote against a proposal? The current rules are not set up this way, but in our opinion, they should be, and we are going to try to get these things changed next.




Thanks,
Tom Pruitt
Network Engineer
Stratus Networks
(309)408-8704
[stratus_networks_logo_FINAL]
This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it are the property of Stratus Networks, Inc. and/or its affiliates, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 309-408-8704 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210110/f27c4246/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15673 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210110/f27c4246/attachment.png>