<div dir="ltr"><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>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.<br><br>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.</div><div><br></div>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.<div><br></div><div>Thank you for your consideration, and please support ARIN-2020-2. <div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:35 AM Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>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 ?</p>
<p>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.<br>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.<br>
</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 10/01/2021 13:08, Tom Pruitt wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="m_5245156291009552799_m_392382607154939385__Hlk60815351"> 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.
<u></u><u></u></a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span>
We are requesting that all in favor of this proposal voice
their approval on the PPML.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<span></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Per section 2.4 of the PDP:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">2.4.
Petition for Board of Trustees Consideration<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
In our opinion, this proposal clearly met the criteria
necessary for adoption by ARIN. Our reasoning is outlined
below.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<u></u>
<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
In order to get new policy, as drawn directly from the PDP:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Principles
of Internet Number Resource Policy<u></u><u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="1">
<li style="margin-top:12pt;line-height:normal">
<b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Enabling
fair and impartial number resource administration:<u></u><u></u></span></b></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<u></u>
<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
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, <b><i><u>that it will have no effect</u></i></b>,
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? <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">As taken
directly from the minutes:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<i>
“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.”<u></u><u></u></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Actual
definition directly from the PDP:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<i>
“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.”<u></u><u></u></i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="2">
<li style="line-height:normal">
<b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Technically
Sound</span></b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">:
<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">I do not
think anyone has questioned that this is a technically sound
proposal.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="3">
<li style="line-height:normal">
<b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Community
Support:<u></u><u></u></span></b></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<i>
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.<u></u><u></u></i></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
In the
<b><u>PUBLIC MEETING</u></b> 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
<b>ZERO</b> were present for this meeting. Stratus does not
know a single one of the
<b>42 people</b> that supported this policy. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<u></u>
<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
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
<b>LAST CALL</b>. How is that not an abuse of the system? <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<u></u>
<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
Arin AC Council Chris Tacit brought this up in the council
meeting:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background:white">
<i>“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.”</i></span><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
The voices of dissent are mostly regulars on ARIN
commenting.
<span style="color:red"> </span>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? <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> AC
council Owen DeLong states:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">“<span style="color:black;background:white">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.
<span style="background:yellow">He
believed it does not represent a broad segment
</span> <span style="background:yellow">of the
</span>
<span style="background:yellow">community,
but rather narrow.</span> OD stated he would vote
against advancing the policy forward.”</span><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<u></u>
<u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
In no particular order:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="1">
<li style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Stratus
did not incent a single organization with a SINGLE
THING!!!!<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="2">
<li style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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. <u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="3">
<li style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">For
reference, Websters defines Astroturfing as,
<i>“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)“</i><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="4">
<li style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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. <u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="5">
<li style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="6">
<li style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Stratus
has not conspired to commit any fraud of any kind. This
is again a baseless and malicious attack on Stratus.
<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="7">
<li style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="8">
<li style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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.<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ol style="margin-top:0in" type="1" start="9">
<li style="margin-left:0in;line-height:normal">
<span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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?<u></u><u></u></span></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
ARIN has a set of rules and they should be obeyed:
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> “The
ARIN Mailing List Appropriate Usage Policy specifically
prohibits statements that include foul language and/or
<span style="background:yellow">personal
character attacks, statements that show disrespect for
other participants (including ARIN),</span>
<span style="background:yellow">and
statements that are slanderous or libelous</span>.”<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
Below is just a
<b><u>SAMPLE</u></b> 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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="line-height:normal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">“I oppose
any special treatment being given to
<span style="background:yellow">organizations
that encourage<u></u><u></u></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">their
customers to spam the policy list with messages in support
of such<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">special
treatment.”</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">“I also
do not like those that have sent their
<span style="background:yellow">customers
to this list to <u></u>
<u></u></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">lobby
for receiving this space instead of</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">
<span style="background:yellow">the
"new entrants" to up the
<u></u><u></u></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">count
of those that are in favor in an effort to promote
adoption of this
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">proposal.”</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">"There
are 18 comments in favour of the spirit of this policy,
and 5 against."
<span style="background:yellow">If
these ISPs continue to lobby their "customers</span>" to
reply on this thread in favor of the policy, will that
hold any weight?”<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">“I'm
not sure how to say this in the most diplomatic way
possible, but
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">why
not explore other options just in case?
<span style="background:yellow">Is an
org that fails to <u></u>
<u></u></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">consider
backup plans really</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">
something that rises to the level of a <u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">community
problem that needs a special policy?”<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">“Who are
all these people that
<span style="background:yellow">"support
the Stratus stance" out of
</span></span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">nowhere
and do they have any opinion on why they support it or
know what
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">they're
supporting?”</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">“Subject:
[arin-ppml]
<span style="background:yellow">Stratus
astroturfing</span><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">You
can assume that Stratus (Tom Pruitt, Network Engineer,
Stratus Networks) has incentivized their customers/vendors
to advocate for the policy</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">. They
will likely obtain additional IPv4 space if the policy
goes into effect.”<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">“<span style="background:yellow">I believe
these
<u></u><u></u></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">actions
show that Stratus may be conspiring to commit fraud</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"> through
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">manufactured
support of a policy for their own benefit, and not the
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">benefit
of the community.”<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">“I am
finding it hard to separate
<span style="background:yellow">the
merits (or lack thereof) of this
<u></u><u></u></span></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background:yellow">policy
proposal from the motivations behind it”</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<pre><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">“<span style="color:black">It is a public list, <span style="background:yellow">but such a display of manufactured "support" <u></u><u></u></span></span></span></i></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black;background:yellow">appears
to be an attempt to manipulate policy</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">
in a way that is not for <u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">the
benefit of the community it's supposed to serve. Often
when someone
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">wants
a policy to happen so badly that they're willing to try to
tip the
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">scales
in their favor by any means necessary, it usually means
it's not
<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><i><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">good
for the rest of us.”<u></u><u></u></span></i></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:black">
</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif">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.
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks<span style="color:rgb(0,32,96)">,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tom Pruitt <u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Network Engineer<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Stratus Networks<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">(309)408-8704<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><img style="width:2.025in;height:0.6916in" id="m_5245156291009552799gmail-m_392382607154939385Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:176f3b835744cff311" alt="stratus_networks_logo_FINAL" width="194" height="66"><span style="color:black"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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</span><span style="font-size:9pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">===============================================<br>David Farmer <a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br>Networking & Telecommunication Services<br>Office of Information Technology<br>University of Minnesota <br>2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br>Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br>=============================================== </div></div></div></div>