[arin-ppml] AC candidates

Thu Oct 26 14:27:18 EDT 2023

Hi Owen
It is good that this is just your own opinion. You are entitled to it of 
course.

Of course they seek to abide by ARIN policies and pay fees otherwise 
their need don't move. They don't have any other choice. But it is not 
hard to think if they had enough power to change policies in order to 
make their business more easy and with less "blocks" caused by good 
policies developed by experienced people with major interest in the 
community needs, to exist fairness in resource allocation and that 
everyone is served reasonably and equally regardless their size and how 
much money they have do you really think they would refrain from doing 
that ? It is not because maybe a single person wasn't able to move 
forward things that are beneficial to a minority and to specific 
business because he/she didn't have enough votes or support that he/she 
or them would not do if they had. In my view is naive to think most 
would balance well community interests and an specific business interest.

Regarding the ad hominem attacks thing please just refrain from saying 
this every time someone say anything that bothers reading and contrary 
to your own thinking. I ask you to make an effort to separate a mere 
annoyance and endeavor to put arguments to defend your points and the 
discussion can continue fine.

Regards
Fernando

On 26/10/2023 15:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:49, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> The very existence of PPML is a block and problem for IP brokers to 
>> freely do business due to the restrictions policies developed here 
>> impact their ability to do whatever their wish to fit to their 
>> customer needs.
>> Last time I saw a IP broker representative speaking to an audience he 
>> said with no shame that it was necessary to remove necessity to 
>> justify for the resources in order to do a transfers. Does anyone 
>> really believes that such person seating on the AC would be able to 
>> balance community interests and his pay checker interests ?
>>
>
> I believe that it has already been proven that this is possible. I 
> will not name the person, though anyone paying attention can probably 
> identify her easily. I hope she will not be upset that I singled her 
> out. Nonetheless, we have had at least one AC member who worked for an 
> address broker at the beginning of her time on the AC and for a 
> substantial time thereafter. IMHO she served with distinction and 
> honor throughout. I am sorry to see that she is not running for 
> re-election.
>
> We didn’t always agree, but I have no doubt that she represented the 
> community honestly and with distinction throughout.
>>
>> In some way the greedy to freely trade with IP resources lead to a 
>> sad and going history of fraud and dismount of an organization like 
>> AfriNic and guess what ? AfriNic was just trying to impose the 
>> current policy developed by the community when it all started.
>>
>
> In fact, the situation in AFRINIC has very little to do with the greed 
> of a broker and significantly more to do with failure by the registry 
> to follow its own governing documents.
>
> For example, consider that there’s a ~8 million address discrepancy 
> between what AFRINIC claims is in their free pool and what should be 
> remaining according to Geoff Huston’s statistics based on their 
> published allocation data.
>>
>> So when someone say they bring a lot of experience I kind of agree, 
>> but experience that they have learned in order to push their own 
>> business ahead despite any community interest involved, nothing else.
>>
> I don’t think that’s a valid assumption to make about everyone that 
> works for every address broker and frankly, I think your statements 
> border on ad hominem attacks.
>
>> Of course I am not willing throw stones on these actors and I know 
>> and have a good relationship with some that are serious and are 
>> really interested in facilitating transfers, but in general I am not 
>> naive to see very much good intentions towards the community 
>> interests from them to this and other Policy Development Forums.
>>
> You pretty much already have, so that statement is laughable.
>>
>> Therefore yes, any person affiliated to IP broker should be seen as a 
>> high conflict of interest.
>>
> Disagreeing with the community isn’t inherently a conflict of 
> interest. A conflict exists when a person is essentially beholden to 
> two masters whose interests are in conflict.
>
> While there are some scenarios where a broker might be at odds with 
> ARIN, this is not inherently the case. Indeed, ARIN maintains a list 
> of brokers that have agreed to abide by ARIN policies and paid fees to 
> ARIN in order to be listed as transfer facilitators.
>
> That’s not a conflict, that’s working together harmoniously, even if 
> you don’t like the result.
>
> Owen
>
>> Fernando
>>
>> On 26/10/2023 13:15, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM Adam Thompson<athompson at merlin.mb.ca>  wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Hi Adam,
>>>
>>> The IP broker's core business directly overlaps with the registry's
>>> function. -Of course- there's a substantial conflict of interest.
>>>
>>> Many folks deeply versed in the issues relevant to ARIN will have jobs
>>> that offer some conflict of interest. They represent their companies
>>> before ARIN. But the broker's or "leaser's" is the most substantial of
>>> all -- it's their *core* business.
>>>
>>> That doesn't necessarily mean they should be rejected as candidates.
>>> After all, they bring a wealth of relevant experience. But at an
>>> absolute minimum, their conflict of interest statement should
>>> demonstrate a clear understanding of their situation. Someone who
>>> doesn't understand the character of his or her conflict of interest
>>> has no place on the board.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Bill Herrin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20231026/80582ef2/attachment.htm>