On 16 Jul 2022, at 4:30 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ... Rather, I have elaborated a set of facts that, as far as I can tell, are quite explicitly indicative of -someone- having messed up.
Interestingly, I do agree with that statement (“-someone- having messed up”) That may be the member in question, or it could be ARIN. I shall present a third alternative shortly. And in fact, I have gone the other way by suggesting that it appears to me more likely than not that the "suspicious fact pattern" I have described may be attributed to a misstep on the part of ARIN. Yes, I have taken note of your often repeated suggestion to that effect, and despite the lack of any actual report, a review of the request in question was conducted. The conclusion of the review is that the particular request was appropriated approved back in 2012 under the policy in effect at that time. There does seem to have been some deviance from written ARIN policy in this instance. Yes, you’ve indicated that is your belief on this list several times in recent days. I have most certainly *not* asked John to provide *any* details about how his staff goes about reviewing member compliance with policy, nor would I have any reason to do so. NRPM Section 9 lays out quite clearly the various criteria that ARIN should (must?) use to evaluate whether any given member does or does not have "a real and substantial connection with the ARIN region”. NRPM section 9 was adopted __in 2016__ <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/changelog/#version-2016-2> Please do not tell me that you expected ARIN to utilize those yet-to-written criteria during consideration of a number resource request made in 2012? Please tell me that your basis for your repeated allegations on this list of ARIN failure to adhere to policy is based on more that a policy section that _did not exist_ at the time of the request in question?? You must think very little of me if you think that I am unable to intuit how ARIN staff might go about the process of simply verifying a member's "substantial connection with the ARIN region". I am not sure why you would have such a low opinion of my capability in this regard, especially given all of the relevant facts that I have found and documented in relation to this specific case (SL-206). I guess you just think I'm a dunce. I shall decline to opine of much of the above, but note that “intuition” is not at all required to determine how ARIN considered such a request back in 2012, as ARIN (after seeing a quantity of requests from entities with only a loose association to the region) raised the matter with the community in March 2013 by way of the ARIN 31 Public Policy Meeting / Policy Experience Report, pages 9 - 14, <https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_31/PDF/monday/nobile_policy.pdf> (This is what ARIN does when we see a circumstances where the implementation of existing policy might not align with community expectations…) I have presented a set of facts which can all be independently verified, and which I assert do undeniably and beyond a reasonable doubt show that a clear deviance from ARIN policy exists. Which policy (or to be more point - which policy that was actually in effect in 2012 when the request was considered) do you believe was violated? No one, not even you, have denied that this is exactly what I have done, and exactly what I have demonstrated. So we have an apparent policy violation. Now the only open questions are (a) Whose fault is it that this arose? and (b) What should be done about it? You suggested earlier “someone messed up” and I concurred. I’ll further suggest that the crux of the mistake may come down to someone examining a 2012 request against number resource policy that was adopted in 2016. What I have done is to raise the possibility that within ARIN, policy enforcement may perhaps have been de-emphasized, ... This was not that case - not only did ARIN enforce the applicable policy against the request at the time, but we went out of way to inform the community about the potential that current policy might not be sufficiently precise so as to result in unexpected outcomes when entities with only a loose association to the region apply for resources. In any event, even my raising of the question of ARIN priorities does not in any way demean either the skills or the professionalism of any member of the ARIN staff, let alone all of them. At most, we are simply and only discussing budget priorities and arguably well-founded considerations relating to the avoidance of costly legal entanglements, and whether such considerations should outweigh the value of additional transparency when it comes to the final resolutions of "fishyness" reports submitted to ARIN. ARIN does not shy away from performance of duties _ever_ due to potential litigation. The community expects the community-developed number resource policy to be utilized in management of the registry and this is done uniformly and without exception. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________ 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.
