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
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
