My statement that what you are doing border on ad hominem has nothing to do with contrary to my thinking. I that to do with the fact that you are basically calling into question the character of an AC candidate and a sitting AC member without regard for the record presented by either one of them in terms of their participation in this community.
Owen > On Oct 26, 2023, at 11:27, Fernando Frediani <fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <fhfredi...@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:fhfredi...@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 <athomp...@merlin.mb.ca> >>>> <mailto:athomp...@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@arin.net >>> <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any >>> issues. >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
