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

Larry Ash lar at mwtcorp.net
Tue Jan 12 15:22:26 EST 2021


I oppose this petition and the policy it is attempting to forward.


  Tom Pruitt <tpruitt at stratusnet.com> 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
> [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
> 


Larry Ash
Mountain West Technologies
123 W 1st St.
Casper, WY 82601
Office 307 233-8387


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list