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

Chris Rogers chris at laggy.org
Mon Jan 11 21:34:02 EST 2021


I oppose this petition.

-Chris

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:21 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:

> There is neither overwhelming support nor overwhelming opposition to this
> policy. There seems to be more support than opposition, however, the level
> of opposition in my opinion makes adopting the policy at this time
> troublesome. The only thing that seems clear to me, this is a very
> contentious policy, and personally, I think it is unnecessarily contentious.
>
> During the AC's November 19th meeting, they voted 8 in favor, to 6
> against, to recommend this policy to the Board, nevertheless, the motion
> failed as the PDP requires 10 votes in favor by the AC to recommend
> adoption of a policy to the Board. I think the AC's vote accurately
> represents the division in the ARIN community regarding this policy.
> Therefore, while I strongly support this policy, I do not support this
> petition and believe further discussion by the community is necessary and
> the proper way forward for this policy.
>
> To this end, I ask those that oppose this policy to reexamine why they
> oppose the policy; If you oppose this policy because of the accusations
> regarding the intent or actions of supporters of this policy; I strongly
> ask you to disregard such mere accusations, they are simply attempts at
> character assassination, and without real proof are inappropriate; Without
> proof, they should not be the basis for opposition.
>
> Further, If you oppose this policy because you feel the implementation of
> ARIN-2019-16 was fair and disagree with many of the supporters of this
> policy who insist that ARIN-2019-16 was not fair. Please consider, that
> while I agree the implementation of ARIN-2019-16 was fair and impartial, it
> had a disproportionally harsh impact on several organizations that were
> removed from the waiting list through no fault of their own. ARIN-2019-16
> was the resolution to a policy emergency, it was considered with much
> urgency in order to resume the operation of the waiting list, I don't feel
> these harsh impacts were properly considered during the development of
> ARIN-2019-16. Furthermore, I contend that reconsidering these impacts and
> grandfathering at least some of the organizations who were removed from the
> waiting list is an equally fair and justified thing to do. I feel
> ARIN-2020-2 properly and fairly mitigates the unnecessarily harsh impacts
> on many organizations who were caught by the urgency of ARIN-2019-16 to
> restore the operation of the waiting list.
>
> Thank you for your consideration, and please support ARIN-2020-2.
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:35 AM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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.”*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    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
>>
>> [image: 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> 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/20210111/a9976714/attachment-0001.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/a9976714/attachment-0001.png>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list