[arin-ppml] Board of Trustees Consideration Petition for ARIN -2020 -2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
Mike Burns
mike at iptrading.com
Mon Jan 11 10:54:44 EST 2021
I support the petition.
Regards,
Mike Burns
IPTrading.com
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 10:35 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Board of Trustees Consideration Petition for ARIN
-2020 -2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by
Implementation of ARIN-2019-16
Obviously anyone has the right to petition, but I am trying to understand
the intent of this appeal. Make the Board of Trustees to push something that
haven't had enough support from the community ?
It may meet some minimal criteria to be a proposal and be discussed but it
didn't reach enough support from community neither consensus that this is
something good for the region. In my view it is as simple as that.
The same way it is mentioned there was a "overwhelming" support for this
proposal there was also a overwhelming opposition to this proposal which
make it enough for it not reach consensus.
It doesn't really matter how many people were in support or against, but the
arguments mentioned by each one and how relevant they were to the impact of
the adoption of this proposal and as would be expected the AC took all that
discussion into consideration, not the number of people on each side.
This proposal didn't have enough support and didn't reach consensus,
probably because a fair amount of people don't believed this is not good for
a broad number of members. It's how the things work in these type of forums.
Regards
Fernando
On 10/01/2021 13:08, Tom Pruitt wrote:
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."
2. Technically Sound:
I do not think anyone has questioned that this is a technically sound
proposal.
3. 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!!!!
2. 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.
3. 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)"
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Stratus has not conspired to commit any fraud of any kind. This is
again a baseless and malicious attack on Stratus.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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
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
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
<mailto: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 <mailto: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/20210111/62bb152b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210111/62bb152b/attachment.png>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list