[arin-ppml] AC candidates

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Oct 26 13:01:17 EDT 2023 

Having served for several years on the AC along side someone who worked for one of the larger address brokers throughout most of that time,
I will say that IMHO, she served with honor and distinction and was an excellent addition to the AC.

I don’t see working for an address broker as an inherent COI for an AC member, so long as their role is not somehow hidden from the community
in the election process.

YMMV

Owen


> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:11, Dustin Moses <dmoses at intermaxteam.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> I agree with you that having a candidate disclose a potential COI is a major point, the reality is in a multi-stakeholder community led organization such as ARIN, wouldn't most qualified candidates have a conflict of interest when it comes to policy? I think there is a fair handed approach to the multiple mindset approach that is the AC as well as policy that is actively driven by community participation. If you see policy that seems skewed, then actively deny it in the PPML and at the general meeting. This is a benefit of the open Policy Development Process that ARIN has adopted recently. Unless there is clear "industry takeover" of multiple candidates in the same space, I don't really see the conflict of interest but rather a separate state of opinion. 
> 
> I think it is great you are asking for candidates to participate in a public forum of opinion and get to hear the words directly from the candidates themselves. I am sure other people have had similar concerns and the PPML is a great way to raise them.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> <image141997.png> <https://intermaxnetworks.com/>	
> Dustin Moses​
> Network Engineer III
> o: 208-762-8065 <tel:208-762-8065>	
>   
> d: (208) 758‑0489
> w: intermaxnetworks.com <http://intermaxnetworks.com/>
> a: 
> 7400 N Mineral Drive Suite 300
> , 
> Coeur d'Alene
> , 
> ID
>  
> 83815
> <image987367.png> <https://twitter.com/imaxnetworks>	
> <image565768.png> <https://www.facebook.com/ImaxNetworks/>	
> <image470206.png> <https://linkedin.com/company/intermaxnetworks>-----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of arin-ppml-request at arin.net
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 8:43 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 220, Issue 9
> 
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml at arin.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-request at arin.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> 1. Re: AC candidates (Mike Burns)
> 2. Re: AC candidates (Chris Woodfield)
> 3. Re: AC candidates (Andrew Dul)
> 4. Re: AC candidates (Adam Thompson)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:12:20 -0400
> From: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> To: <bill at herrin.us>
> Cc: <fhfrediani at gmail.com>, <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
> Message-ID:
> <18b6c8b26f1.de7c91b8305428.6034375938475563421 at iptrading.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Fair enough, most people interested in this are likely to have some conflicts and it's important to consider those.
> 
> If we unilaterally excluded all candidates with conflicts though, candidate pickings would be even slimmer.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> ---- On Thu,26 Oct 2023 17:22:13 -0400 bill at herrin.us wrote ----On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58?AM Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> > And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to IP 
> > brokers would be a point in their favor considering they are the 
> > people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived plan for addressing it.
> 
> Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to conflicts of interest.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20231026/534972df/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:17:55 -0700
> From: Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com>
> To: "arin-ppml at lists.arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
> Message-ID: <049E6D23-8455-4411-A7EF-82E58CC3AF58 at semihuman.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> The concern, as I see it, is not whether or not a candidate has potential conflicts of interest - you are correct that it would be extremely difficult to find candidates that do not. The question for me is, can a given candidate be trusted to properly separate their personal business interests from the interests of the community, and recuse themselves a given deliberation when there?s no other way to remove the appearance of such a conflict of interest?
> 
> -C
> 
> > On Oct 26, 2023, at 08:12, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Bill,
> > 
> > Fair enough, most people interested in this are likely to have some conflicts and it's important to consider those.
> > 
> > If we unilaterally excluded all candidates with conflicts though, candidate pickings would be even slimmer.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---- On Thu,26 Oct 2023 17:22:13 -0400 bill at herrin.us wrote ----
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58?AM Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com>> wrote: 
> > > And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to IP 
> > > brokers would be a point in their favor considering they are the 
> > > people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.
> > 
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an 
> > ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the 
> > conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived 
> > plan for addressing it.
> > 
> > Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a 
> > job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully 
> > managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I 
> > couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to 
> > conflicts of interest.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > William Herrin
> > bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us> https://bill.herrin.us/
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20231026/46a05e24/attachment-0001.htm>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:27:08 -0700
> From: Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
> Message-ID: <187dfd17-ce54-4034-b590-69327c71f3e5 at quark.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> 
> On 10/26/2023 12:42 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> > Howdy,
> >
> > As I think about how to vote for the AC candidates, I figured I'd 
> > check the list archives to see how each one went about arguing for and 
> > against proposals over the years. Seems like a reasonable way to 
> > evaluate a candidate judged "well qualified," right?
> >
> > Imagine my surprise. Of the 14 candidates, only 5 have posted here as 
> > a member of the general public. Ever. Even a couple of the current AC 
> > members have only posted here in their official capacity on the AC.
> >
> > I don't know what to say.I just don't know what to say.
> >
> Bill,
> 
> I have also used this metric in the past when considering AC candidates.? We will have a large turnover in AC seats this year so perhaps this metric is a bit skewed this year??? Or maybe it is a trend?
> 
> I think one question to ask would be is this an artifact of the AC candidates and current AC members and PPML or PPML as a whole? I certainly would like to see more collaboration on the PPML by AC members but we just don't see that.? There has been discussion on and off about how the AC contributes to the public discussion with an awareness of their position could create a bias in the discussion.? This has been specifically discussed regarding comments at the microphone during the public policy meeting, but the sentiment I think also carries over a little bit onto the list.
> 
> While the PPML is open to any participant we see very few active collaborators on this list.? My perception as someone who has been on this list for a long time is that the number of active collaborators has decreased over time.? One could certainly "do the research" to confirm or deny that perception.? There could be many reasons for that, but are those reasons also applicable to AC members and candidates?
> 
> 
> Hope this helps,
> 
> Andrew? (AC member but not speaking for the AC)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 15:42:41 +0000
> From: Adam Thompson <athompson at merlin.mb.ca>
> To: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us>, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
> Message-ID:
> <YQBPR0101MB892556A7C22CE8A46A8D206E9BDDA at YQBPR0101MB8925.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I can't believe I'm taking this position now, but I guess it's 2023 so here we are...
> 
> I don't agree that an IP broker *inherently* has a problematic conflict of interest with ARIN, any more than every ARIN member on the AC has some degree of inherent conflict of interest. Every AC member is an ARIN member that obtains resources from ARIN, and thus could be tempted to act solely in their own interests.
> IP brokers have similar conflicts of interest quantitatively, not necessarily any larger than an LRSA signatory with, say, a /12's worth of resources or more - they just retire and acquire several [new] conflicts of interest every day, as opposed to having the exact same conflict of interest day after day. Yes, of course there's a qualitative difference, but I don't think a comprehensive ontology for conflicts of interest exists yet, never mind a hierarchy.
> 
> While I really wish IP brokers didn't [need to] exist as an industry, they do, and they appear to be the primary means of IP address distribution today, for better or for worse - and therefore keeping them out in the cold doesn't serve the interests of ARIN or the ARIN membership or the larger internet community. I'd rather see them participating in ARIN governance instead of being what threatens to be an RIR-bypass mechanism. "If you can't beat them, join them" works in both directions.
> 
> Do they have to carefully manage their COIs? Yes, in exactly the was same every other person on the AC, the board, committees, etc. must. I can't see any reason they would be intrinsically less able to do so, and I feel that insinuation otherwise starts edging towards ad-hominem attacks.
> 
> As to why they need to exist... well, we all collectively did that to ourselves with the!@#$%^&* pathologically painful transition path to IPv6. (Speaking as someone running a fully v6-enabled ISP/MSP... I have exactly one client who cares. Sigh.)
> 
> Speaking my own opinions, not necessarily my employer's, -Adam
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of William 
> > Herrin
> > Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 9:22 AM
> > To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58?AM Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> > > And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to IP 
> > > brokers would be a point in their favor considering they are the 
> > > people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.
> > 
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an 
> > ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the 
> > conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived 
> > plan for addressing it.
> > 
> > Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a 
> > job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully 
> > managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I 
> > couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to 
> > conflicts of interest.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Bill Herrin
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > William Herrin
> > bill at herrin.us
> > https://bill.herrin.us/
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 220, Issue 9
> *****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20231026/2dfe5038/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list