I oppose this petition. -Chris
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 6:21 PM David Farmer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > Thank you for your consideration, and please support ARIN-2020-2. > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 9:35 AM Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 ? >> >> 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. >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> 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. >> >> Regards >> Fernando >> On 10/01/2021 13:08, Tom Pruitt 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 >> >> [image: 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. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:[email protected] > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > 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. >
_______________________________________________ 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.
