Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Matthew Petach]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:18 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller
>  wrote:
> > We wanted to encourage discussion so we could
> > determine support, but not dominate the conversation.
>
> Hi Heather,
>
> Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the
> bulk of proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate
> to the AC *not* dominating the conversation?
>

Hi Bill,

I think a slight paraphrasing of the famous line from "Hamilton" sums up
the position of the AC members well:

"Talk less; listen more"

The goal is to hear what the other members of the community have to say,
not to tell the community what *their* position is.
If you want to know their position, read the candidate statements.
Personally, I'd find it off-putting if the AC members were to jump into a
discussion on a proposal with a significant position one way or the other.
Their job is to listen to the community and enact the will of the
community, not to impose their views on the community.

Matt
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:15 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2023, at 00:16, William Herrin  wrote:
> > I have no qualms with the AC having a safe space to candidly discuss
> > and debate the policy proposals. But don't blow smoke up my tail that
> > they're not privately discussing and debating the policy proposals. If
> > that were the whole truth, if the private discussion was purely
> > administrivia, they'd have no need for a safe space.
>
> I never said that. I said that the private debate/discussion of the proposals
> is relatively dry.

And I said that if it was as dry as all that, then doing it in private
would have negative value. Dry conversations about public matters have
no need for privacy, and ARIN public policies are, as the name
implies, of public interest.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 29, 2023, at 00:16, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:36 PM Delong.com  wrote:
>> Overall, I think it provides a better result, but making a public record of
>> absolutely everything would be cause more problems than it would solve
>> IMHO.
> 
> I have no qualms with the AC having a safe space to candidly discuss
> and debate the policy proposals. But don't blow smoke up my tail that
> they're not privately discussing and debating the policy proposals. If
> that were the whole truth, if the private discussion was purely
> administrivia, they'd have no need for a safe space.

I never said that. I said that the private debate/discussion of the proposals
is relatively dry.

Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:36 PM Delong.com  wrote:
> Overall, I think it provides a better result, but making a public record of
> absolutely everything would be cause more problems than it would solve
> IMHO.

I have no qualms with the AC having a safe space to candidly discuss
and debate the policy proposals. But don't blow smoke up my tail that
they're not privately discussing and debating the policy proposals. If
that were the whole truth, if the private discussion was purely
administrivia, they'd have no need for a safe space.

-Bill

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Delong.com via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 28, 2023, at 10:47, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 9:45 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> Ignoring the second half of that statement isn’t particularly fair play here.
> 
> I like subtle things Owen, but drawing a distinction between
> discussing the discussion people had about something and discussing
> the something itself is too subtle even for me.

Not what I said. There’s quite a bit of conversation at AC meetings in my
experience that isn’t necessarily directly related to policy. It’s a collegial
bunch and though the meetings are run according to Roberts, it’s a somewhat
relaxed version of Roberts and a certain amount of informality is tolerated.

Overall, I think it provides a better result, but making a public record of
absolutely everything would be cause more problems than it would solve
IMHO.

Owen


___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 9:45 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> Ignoring the second half of that statement isn’t particularly fair play here.

I like subtle things Owen, but drawing a distinction between
discussing the discussion people had about something and discussing
the something itself is too subtle even for me.

-Bill


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 28, 2023, at 08:08, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
 On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin  wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller
>>>  wrote:
 The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public.
 Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow
 aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality and whether
>>> 
>>> If the AC meetings are truly that dry, ARIN can win some -easy-
>>> brownie points by holding them on a recorded, open call.
>> 
>> In my experience they aren’t that dry,
> 
> Yeah, that's what I thought.

Ignoring the second half of that statement isn’t particularly fair play here. 

Owen

> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:52 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin  wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller
> >  wrote:
> >> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public.
> >> Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow
> >> aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality and whether
> >
> > If the AC meetings are truly that dry, ARIN can win some -easy-
> > brownie points by holding them on a recorded, open call.
>
> In my experience they aren’t that dry,

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[Fearghas Mckay]

 On 28 Oct 2023 at 08:01:45, Douglas Camin  wrote:

> Next year holding an ASN only will be considered a valid path to being a
> general voting member of ARIN, so this limitation will be removed.
>


However this discussion is about moving the candidate talk to a closed list
for this year.

For next year things will be better.

f
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[Douglas Camin]

Fearghas –

Next year holding an ASN only will be considered a valid path to being a 
general voting member of ARIN, so this limitation will be removed.

See: https://www.arin.net/announcements/20230921/

Hope that helps –


Doug



--
Douglas J. Camin
ARIN Advisory Council
d...@dougcamin.com<mailto:d...@dougcamin.com>




--
Douglas J. Camin
d...@dougcamin.com

From: ARIN-PPML  on behalf of Fearghas McKay 

Date: Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:59 PM
To: Owen DeLong 
Cc: PPML 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates


> On 27 Oct 2023, at 18:54, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML  
> wrote:
>
>
> Sure, but there’s no other list open to those interested who are not general 
> members.

Including those of us who only have ARIN ASNs but number resources are 
elsewhere who cannot be general  members despite paying fees.

f
___
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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.arin.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Farin-ppml=05%7C01%7C%7Ce2a3d72d431248c46de108dbd7405dc5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638340443666047569%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=C5t9o%2FyFRFJDUc9PIcCI9kRXeKSmeqsk7jPWBgr7wmA%3D=0<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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[John Springer]

The phrase that always went around "back in the day" was : members of the
community have the right to seek policy proposals in their own interests.
Law enforcement in particular was encouraged in this way. And members (in
the old sense) did. And it was perfectly normal for large resource holders
(and countries) to what? place personnel on the board and AC to relatively
unabashedly influence policy in their master's interests? And there was no
recusal or rarely.

So sure, sunshine cures many ills. Not much has changed in that regard.
imvho

Springer
only the one voice
once part of the not falling out of the sky

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:58 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML 
wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 26, 2023, at 21:01, Martin Hannigan  wrote:
>
> 
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 23:51 Fernando Frediani 
> wrote:
>
>> Well said.
>>
>> I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing
>> compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with
>> evolution and entrepreneurship.
>
>
>
> I find it weird that people still answer every business problem with
> “IPv6”.  If the Internet wasn’t a business nome of us would be here.
>
> One only need look at legacy allocations (and boundaries) to understand
> that its always been understood there are coexisting interests that can
> align. Including the role we all created for brokerage.
>
> They didn’t just fall out of the sky.
>
> YMMV,
>
> -M<
>
>
> Well said. Look, I was one of the most resistant to the idea of address
> resale in the days leading up to runout. However, today’s reality is
> substantially different from the reality that existed at that time and I
> adapted my thinking.
>
> Brokers provide a valuable service to the community. They spend a
> considerable amount of effort tracking down underutilized resources and
> making it possible for those resources to be better utilized.
>
> Are there areas where their interests may conflict with the broader
> community? You betcha.
>
> However, there was a time when the interests of large ISPs included
> restricting the minimum ARIN allocation or assignment size to /19 (and some
> of them would have liked to see it even shorter (ISTR some pushing for /16
> at one point). On the other hand, the smaller providers and end users
> wanted to see it move to /24.
>
> The community has always included members with differing legitimate needs
> and desires. The job of the AC is to work with the community to find
> balance among those.
>
> Today, and at least until we can consider IPv4 an island protocol not
> relevant to the core internet, brokers are a reality. They have a
> legitimate role to play and provide an important service to the community.
> These are words I would never have expected to write 15 years ago. But as I
> said, reality has changed.
>
> Would I want brokers solely in charge of ARIN policy? No.
>
> Nor would I want any one of large ISPs, Cable operators, WISPs, or
> community networks or any other single ARIN constituency solely in charge.
> That’s why I’m glad we have a 15-member advisory council that contains
> representatives from many different ARIN constituencies and a broad range
> of experience.
>
> But each of those constituencies is entitled to fair representation and
> participation and it makes no sense to me to argue that someone is
> inherently more conflicted merely because they come from a particular
> constituency.
>
> Owen
> ___
> 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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Steven Ryerse via ARIN-PPML]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 2:23 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:11, William Herrin  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:01 AM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
>>>  wrote:
>>> I don’t see working for an address broker as an inherent COI for an AC 
>>> member
>> 
>> Respectfully, this means you misunderstand the nature of Conflict of
>> Interest. A conflict of interest is not inherently disqualifying. An
>> impacted individual can, in fact, serve with distinction. But the
>> conflict of interest must be managed. And for that to happen, it must
>> first be -acknowledged- and understood.
>> 
>> Suppose, for example, I were to be elected to the board. I am a legacy
>> resource holder, personally, and I have outspoken and presumptively
>> self-serving views about how ARIN should interact with legacy
>> registrants like myself. That's a conflict of interest. Were I a board
>> member, it would be appropriate for me to recuse myself from votes to
>> materially change ARIN's interaction with legacy registrants.
> 
> Sure, but what does an address broker who is transferring addresses
> in accordance with ARIN policies and acting as a legitimate facilitator
> do that is an inherent COI?
> 
> Yes, there are possible policies that could come up that could materially
> benefit such an organization. There are also policies that come up that
> could materially benefit cloud providers, large ISPs, small ISPs, or just
> about any other subgroup of ARIN members you’d like to identify.
> 
> I don’t see brokers as being inherently different from any other group of
> ARIN constituents.
> 
> Owen
> 
> ___
> 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.
> 
> 
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
> content is safe.
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:39, Mike Burns  wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> I don't really disagree and
> I didn't find anything unreasonable but I thought the discussion about 
> leasing was lively and brought in new participants and ended too soon. But as 
> Heather points out, there is no double jeopardy.

I don’t entirely disagree, but I wasn’t voting on that particular one. ;-)

> I preferred the situation in the past when shepherds were there more to 
> assist than to decide things unilaterally like edits and abandonment. Seems 
> like my interactions with shepherds during Prop-151 in 2011 were on a more 
> equitable footing, with them making suggestions but I decided.

Shepherds are still there more to assist. Shepherds cannot decide anything 
unilaterally.

Shepherds make recommendations to the AC and have some latitude to make edits 
(based on author and community feedback, not just their own opinions), but the 
AC as a whole 

Abandonment at that stage requires an affirmative vote of at least 8 AC members 
IIRC.

> On the spectrum of power to the AC versus power to the author I come down on 
> the latter side. Unsurprisingly.

That has proven problematic in the past, mainly due to unresponsive authors 
more than due to differences between authors and AC shepherds.

> Would a recording of the AC meeting inhibit discussion?

Yes.

Owen

> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
>  On Sat,28 Oct 2023 01:51:18 -0400 o...@delong.com wrote 
> 
> I believe that proposal was abandoned due to substantial community opposition 
> and little support 
> expressed on the mailing list. 
> 
> If you were waiting for the meeting to get support expressed, that was a poor 
> choice. The majority 
> of policy development work is intended to be on the list with the meetings 
> serving primarily 
> as an opportunity for fine tuning and semi-final comments on proposals that 
> are nearly ready 
> for last call. Other proposals are discussed at the meetings as time permits 
> (and that usually 
> means we make time for every active proposal at every meeting). 
> 
> But at a point where it appears to the AC that a proposal is extremely 
> unlikely to reach 
> consensus (i.e. has significant strong opposition and minimal support), it’s 
> perfectly reasonable 
> for the AC to make the determination to abandon. 
> 
> Owen 
> 
> 
> > On Oct 27, 2023, at 13:30, Mike Burns  > <mailto:m...@iptrading.com>> wrote: 
> > 
> > Hi Bill, 
> > 
> > Thanks for introduction the topic of list participation by AC members and 
> > candidates. 
> > The AC minutes obviously don't give much detail about any substantive 
> > discussions between AC members. 
> > 
> > My story: 
> > Considering the interest on the list, I was nonplussed when my recent 
> > proposal to allow non-connected customers to be considered as valid 
> > justifications for transfers was abandoned by the AC. 
> > As I remember it was just before a meeting where I expected some robust, 
> > live debate and I felt the abandonment was peremptory. 
> > I knew I could petition, though, and I knew it was a judgment call because 
> > there was little support expressed on the list, and I remember your 
> > opposition. 
> > However I thought we were waiting for the live event and marshalling our 
> > rhetorical ammunition. 
> > As an author who lost the pen, I also lost the decision-making about 
> > abandonment I suppose. 
> > 
> > In general I prefer transparency and discussion on the list to closed 
> > intra-AC debate. If there is a reasonable way to achieve that, great. 
> > It would certainly help evaluate re-election candidates. 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > Mike 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> > From: ARIN-PPML  > <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>> On Behalf Of William Herrin 
> > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM 
> > To: Heather Schiller  > <mailto:heather.ska...@gmail.com>> 
> > Cc: arin-ppml mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> 
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit) 
> > 
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller  > <mailto:heather.ska...@gmail.com>> wrote: 
> >> We wanted to encourage discussion so we could determine support, but 
> >> not dominate the conversation. 
> > 
> > Hi Heather, 
> > 
> > Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the bulk 
> > of proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate to the AC 
> > *not* dominating the conversation? 
> > 
> > Does the current 

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller
>  wrote:
>> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public.
>> Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow
>> aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality and whether
> 
> Hi Heather,
> 
> If the AC meetings are truly that dry, ARIN can win some -easy-
> brownie points by holding them on a recorded, open call.

In my experience they aren’t that dry, but the policy relevant discussions are.

By holding the evolutions in a closed meeting, AC members are free to speak 
collegially in
a manner more candid that would be appropriate if it was to be open to the 
general
public. However, none of what goes on behind those closed doors involves any
sort of collusion against the will of the community and I think that the long 
term
record of the AC, the published roll-call votes, and the relatively low rate of
petitions reflects that.

> I thought the point of a closed meeting was so the folks on the AC
> would be free to say what they think, but if the meetings are as dry
> as all that then there's no need.

Evaluation of comments by various members of the public can be very candid in 
some
cases. Limiting that to comments fit for general public consumption would place 
an
additional burden and decrease the quality of discussion, IMHO.

Think about the difference in how you would speak to a group of 15 friends in 
your
own home about what you saw at the ARIN meeting vs. how you would describe
it at the microphone of another public event.

Even though the content is limited to the same public topics, the way in which
you would approach the discussion would likely be substantially different.

Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Steven Ryerse via ARIN-PPML]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 11:43 AM, Adam Thompson  wrote:
> 
> I can't believe I'm taking this position now, but I guess it's 2023 so here 
> we are...
> 
> 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.  Every AC member is an ARIN member that 
> obtains resources from ARIN, and thus could be tempted to act solely in their 
> own interests.
> IP brokers have similar conflicts of interest quantitatively, not necessarily 
> any larger than an LRSA signatory with, say, a /12's worth of resources or 
> more - they just retire and acquire several [new] conflicts of interest every 
> day, as opposed to having the exact same conflict of interest day after day.  
> Yes, of course there's a qualitative difference, but I don't think a 
> comprehensive ontology for conflicts of interest exists yet, never mind a 
> hierarchy.
> 
> While I really wish IP brokers didn't [need to] exist as an industry, they 
> do, and they appear to be the primary means of IP address distribution today, 
> for better or for worse - and therefore keeping them out in the cold doesn't 
> serve the interests of ARIN or the ARIN membership or the larger internet 
> community.  I'd rather see them participating in ARIN governance instead of 
> being what threatens to be an RIR-bypass mechanism.  "If you can't beat them, 
> join them" works in both directions.
> 
> Do they have to carefully manage their COIs?  Yes, in exactly the was same 
> every other person on the AC, the board, committees, etc. must.  I can't see 
> any reason they would be intrinsically less able to do so, and I feel that 
> insinuation otherwise starts edging towards ad-hominem attacks.
> 
> As to why they need to exist... well, we all collectively did that to 
> ourselves with the!@#$%^&* pathologically painful transition path to IPv6.  
> (Speaking as someone running a fully v6-enabled ISP/MSP... I have exactly one 
> client who cares.  Sigh.)
> 
> Speaking my own opinions, not necessarily my employer's,
> -Adam
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of William Herrin
>> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 9:22 AM
>> To: Mike Burns 
>> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Mike Burns  wrote:
>>> And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to
>>> IP brokers would be a point in their favor considering they
>>> are the people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.
>> 
>> Hi Mike,
>> 
>> Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an
>> ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the
>> conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived
>> plan for addressing it.
>> 
>> Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a
>> job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully
>> managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I
>> couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to
>> conflicts of interest.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> William Herrin
>> b...@herrin.us
>> https://bill.herrin.us/
>> ___
>> 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.
> 
> 
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click 
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the 
> content is safe.
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 18:06, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:05 PM John Curran  wrote:
>> We will hold an appropriate consultation in the future to discuss this issue 
>> and so that the merits of various
>> approaches can be considered.
> 
> Am I crazy, or did ARIN just hold a consultation about splitting the
> PPML list last year and get a resounding "no" that folks would rather
> keep the public discussion on the existing list even if it sometimes
> strayed from things that were strictly policy-related?

You’re not mistaken and I don’t think anyone is re-proposing that idea.

I pointed out that there’s no other list and John pushed to postpone further 
PPML discussion into a consultation.

Seems a reasonable compromise to me.

Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Mike Burns]

Hi Owen,

I don't really disagree and 
I didn't find anything unreasonable but I thought the discussion about leasing 
was lively and brought in new participants and ended too soon. But as Heather 
points out, there is no double jeopardy.


I preferred the situation in the past when shepherds were there more to assist 
than to decide things unilaterally like edits and abandonment. Seems like my 
interactions with shepherds during Prop-151 in 2011 were on a more equitable 
footing, with them making suggestions but I decided.


On the spectrum of power to the AC versus power to the author I come down on 
the latter side. Unsurprisingly.


Would a recording of the AC meeting inhibit discussion?


Regards,

Mike

  On Sat,28 Oct 2023 01:51:18 -0400  o...@delong.com  wrote I believe 
that proposal was abandoned due to substantial community opposition and little 
support
expressed on the mailing list.

If you were waiting for the meeting to get support expressed, that was a poor 
choice. The majority
of policy development work is intended to be on the list with the meetings 
serving primarily 
as an opportunity for fine tuning and semi-final comments on proposals that are 
nearly ready
for last call. Other proposals are discussed at the meetings as time permits 
(and that usually
means we make time for every active proposal at every meeting).

But at a point where it appears to the AC that a proposal is extremely unlikely 
to reach
consensus (i.e. has significant strong opposition and minimal support), it’s 
perfectly reasonable
for the AC to make the determination to abandon.

Owen


> On Oct 27, 2023, at 13:30, Mike Burns  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Thanks for introduction the topic of list participation by AC members and 
> candidates.
> The AC minutes obviously don't give much detail about any substantive 
> discussions between AC members.
> 
> My story:
> Considering the interest on the list, I was nonplussed when my recent 
> proposal to allow non-connected customers to be considered as valid 
> justifications for transfers was abandoned by the AC.
> As I remember it was just before a meeting where I expected some robust, live 
> debate and I felt the abandonment was peremptory.
> I knew I could petition, though, and I knew it was a judgment call because 
> there was little support expressed on the list, and I remember your 
> opposition.
> However I thought we were waiting for the live event and marshalling our 
> rhetorical ammunition.
> As an author who lost the pen, I also lost the decision-making about 
> abandonment I suppose.
> 
> In general I prefer transparency and discussion on the list to closed 
> intra-AC debate. If there is a reasonable way to achieve that, great.
> It would certainly help evaluate re-election candidates.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM
> To: Heather Schiller 
> Cc: arin-ppml 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller  
> wrote:
>> We wanted to encourage discussion so we could determine support, but 
>> not dominate the conversation.
> 
> Hi Heather,
> 
> Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the bulk of 
> proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate to the AC *not* 
> dominating the conversation?
> 
> Does the current process actually achieve that lofty goal?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> ___
> 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.

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller
 wrote:
> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public.
>  Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow
> aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality and whether

Hi Heather,

If the AC meetings are truly that dry, ARIN can win some -easy-
brownie points by holding them on a recorded, open call.

I thought the point of a closed meeting was so the folks on the AC
would be free to say what they think, but if the meetings are as dry
as all that then there's no need.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Heather Schiller]

The substantive discussion about the policy *is* held in public.  Behind
closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow aspects, technically
sound, fairness/impartiality and whether there is community support.  For
the former 2, it is often a summary of the points the community has brought
up.  The AC doesn't typically bring up points that haven't been discussed
before the community, on the odd occasion that a new aspect or question
does come up, it usually goes back to the community for more discussion.
By the time the AC is debating whether to forward something to the board,
everything has been hashed out publicly and they are weighing support.  The
AC minutes reflect this. Further the votes are roll call votes and the
minutes reflect how AC members voted.

As for the volume of discussion -- it often speaks for itself.

 --h

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 3:17 PM William Herrin  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller
>  wrote:
> > We wanted to encourage discussion so we could
> > determine support, but not dominate the conversation.
>
> Hi Heather,
>
> Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the
> bulk of proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate
> to the AC *not* dominating the conversation?
>
> Does the current process actually achieve that lofty goal?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Heather Schiller]

The process <https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/> is
thoroughly documented.  The bulk of discussion is on the mailing list, a
public place open to contribution.  The AC shepherds policies through the
process, cleaning up and refining them along the way. They look out that
policies are technically sound, fair and impartial.  The *community* speaks
in favor or against a policy on the mailing list and the AC deliberates
whether there is support for the proposal.  As an author, you can and
should seek out statements of support on the mailing list.  If all the
feedback about a proposal is against it, cut it loose.  Nothing is lost,
you can always re-evaluate, modify and try again.  There is no prejudice.
It's not a trial, double jeopardy doesn't apply.

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 4:30 PM Mike Burns  wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for introduction the topic of list participation by AC members and
> candidates.
> The AC minutes obviously don't give much detail about any substantive
> discussions between AC members.
>
> My story:
> Considering the interest on the list, I was nonplussed when my recent
> proposal to allow non-connected customers to be considered as valid
> justifications for transfers was abandoned by the AC.
> As I remember it was just before a meeting where I expected some robust,
> live debate and I felt the abandonment was peremptory.
> I knew I could petition, though, and I knew it was a judgment call because
> there was little support expressed on the list, and I remember your
> opposition.
> However I thought we were waiting for the live event and marshalling our
> rhetorical ammunition.
> As an author who lost the pen, I also lost the decision-making about
> abandonment I suppose.
>
> In general I prefer transparency and discussion on the list to closed
> intra-AC debate. If there is a reasonable way to achieve that, great.
> It would certainly help evaluate re-election candidates.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM
> To: Heather Schiller 
> Cc: arin-ppml 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller <
> heather.ska...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We wanted to encourage discussion so we could determine support, but
> > not dominate the conversation.
>
> Hi Heather,
>
> Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the bulk
> of proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate to the AC
> *not* dominating the conversation?
>
> Does the current process actually achieve that lofty goal?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> ___
> 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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:05 PM John Curran  wrote:
> We will hold an appropriate consultation in the future to discuss this issue 
> and so that the merits of various
> approaches can be considered.

Am I crazy, or did ARIN just hold a consultation about splitting the
PPML list last year and get a resounding "no" that folks would rather
keep the public discussion on the existing list even if it sometimes
strayed from things that were strictly policy-related?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[Fearghas McKay]

> On 27 Oct 2023, at 18:54, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Sure, but there’s no other list open to those interested who are not general 
> members.

Including those of us who only have ARIN ASNs but number resources are 
elsewhere who cannot be general  members despite paying fees. 

f
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 14:05, John Curran  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 27, 2023, at 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of the 
>> fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion amongst the broader 
>> community. 
>> 
>> While it’s true that the general-members list reached the electorate, the 
>> impact of the AC is felt not only by the electorate, but also by the broader 
>> community. 
> 
> The impact of ARIN’s elections, registration services agreement, Board of 
> Trustee elections, etc. are also 
> all topics that could affect the broader community – so that property (in and 
> of itself) is not a particularly
> compelling argument for mandate of the use of ppml. 

Agreed… But...
> 
> There are tradeoffs in having such discussions here on ppml (e.g., not 
> everyone here may necessarily 
> want to be buried in discussion of ARIN election processes) versus the 
> general-member mailing list 
> (where discussion of such minutiae might cause drop in general members 
> interest or participation), 
> so this needs to be carefully considered by the community.   

Sure, but there’s no other list open to those interested who are not general 
members.

> We will hold an appropriate consultation in the future to discuss this issue 
> and so that the merits of various
> approaches can be considered.  In the interim, suggestions for the 
> improvements to the ARIN election
> process should be directed to the ARIN ACSP 
> 

I consider this a reasonable alternative at this juncture.

Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

I believe that proposal was abandoned due to substantial community opposition 
and little support
expressed on the mailing list.

If you were waiting for the meeting to get support expressed, that was a poor 
choice. The majority
of policy development work is intended to be on the list with the meetings 
serving primarily 
as an opportunity for fine tuning and semi-final comments on proposals that are 
nearly ready
for last call. Other proposals are discussed at the meetings as time permits 
(and that usually
means we make time for every active proposal at every meeting).

But at a point where it appears to the AC that a proposal is extremely unlikely 
to reach
consensus (i.e. has significant strong opposition and minimal support), it’s 
perfectly reasonable
for the AC to make the determination to abandon.

Owen


> On Oct 27, 2023, at 13:30, Mike Burns  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Thanks for introduction the topic of list participation by AC members and 
> candidates.
> The AC minutes obviously don't give much detail about any substantive 
> discussions between AC members.
> 
> My story:
> Considering the interest on the list, I was nonplussed when my recent 
> proposal to allow non-connected customers to be considered as valid 
> justifications for transfers was abandoned by the AC.
> As I remember it was just before a meeting where I expected some robust, live 
> debate and I felt the abandonment was peremptory.
> I knew I could petition, though, and I knew it was a judgment call because 
> there was little support expressed on the list, and I remember your 
> opposition.
> However I thought we were waiting for the live event and marshalling our 
> rhetorical ammunition.
> As an author who lost the pen, I also lost the decision-making about 
> abandonment I suppose.
> 
> In general I prefer transparency and discussion on the list to closed 
> intra-AC debate. If there is a reasonable way to achieve that, great.
> It would certainly help evaluate re-election candidates.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM
> To: Heather Schiller 
> Cc: arin-ppml 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller  
> wrote:
>> We wanted to encourage discussion so we could determine support, but 
>> not dominate the conversation.
> 
> Hi Heather,
> 
> Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the bulk of 
> proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate to the AC *not* 
> dominating the conversation?
> 
> Does the current process actually achieve that lofty goal?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> ___
> 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.

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[John Curran]

On Oct 27, 2023, at 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML  
wrote:

That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of the 
fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion amongst the broader 
community.

While it’s true that the general-members list reached the electorate, the 
impact of the AC is felt not only by the electorate, but also by the broader 
community.

The impact of ARIN’s elections, registration services agreement, Board of 
Trustee elections, etc. are also
all topics that could affect the broader community – so that property (in and 
of itself) is not a particularly
compelling argument for mandate of the use of ppml.

There are tradeoffs in having such discussions here on ppml (e.g., not everyone 
here may necessarily
want to be buried in discussion of ARIN election processes) versus the 
general-member mailing list
(where discussion of such minutiae might cause drop in general members interest 
or participation),
so this needs to be carefully considered by the community.

We will hold an appropriate consultation in the future to discuss this issue 
and so that the merits of various
approaches can be considered.  In the interim, suggestions for the improvements 
to the ARIN election
process should be directed to the ARIN ACSP 


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 (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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Mike Burns]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for introduction the topic of list participation by AC members and 
candidates.
The AC minutes obviously don't give much detail about any substantive 
discussions between AC members.

My story:
Considering the interest on the list, I was nonplussed when my recent proposal 
to allow non-connected customers to be considered as valid justifications for 
transfers was abandoned by the AC.
As I remember it was just before a meeting where I expected some robust, live 
debate and I felt the abandonment was peremptory.
I knew I could petition, though, and I knew it was a judgment call because 
there was little support expressed on the list, and I remember your opposition.
However I thought we were waiting for the live event and marshalling our 
rhetorical ammunition.
As an author who lost the pen, I also lost the decision-making about 
abandonment I suppose.

In general I prefer transparency and discussion on the list to closed intra-AC 
debate. If there is a reasonable way to achieve that, great.
It would certainly help evaluate re-election candidates.

Regards,
Mike





-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM
To: Heather Schiller 
Cc: arin-ppml 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller  
wrote:
> We wanted to encourage discussion so we could determine support, but 
> not dominate the conversation.

Hi Heather,

Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the bulk of 
proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate to the AC *not* 
dominating the conversation?

Does the current process actually achieve that lofty goal?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[John Curran]

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 3:17 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the
> bulk of proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate
> to the AC *not* dominating the conversation?

Bill - 

The ARIN AC holds quite a bit of discussions about the draft policies, but that 
discussion
focuses primarily on the discussion of the proposals that occurs on this ppml 
mailing list 
and on comments raised during the public policy consultation portion of the 
ARIN meetings.

In other words, they discuss your remarks (and the remarks of others) made 
here.   While it 
is true that the individual ARIN AC members have their own views on draft 
policies, I have 
personally seen many occasions where shepards have recommend actions to the 
contrary
due to community support that ran in a different direction.

> Does the current process actually achieve that lofty goal?

Yes.

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 (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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller
 wrote:
> We wanted to encourage discussion so we could
> determine support, but not dominate the conversation.

Hi Heather,

Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the
bulk of proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate
to the AC *not* dominating the conversation?

Does the current process actually achieve that lofty goal?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Heather Schiller]

Once upon a time there was an individual who was quite vocal in their
misconceptions about ARIN and RIR governance, despite not having actively
participated.  Attempts were made to enlighten the individual.  Eventually
they were nominated and ran for a seat on the AC.  If there is something
you are so ardently opposed to, why not be part of the solution?  They won
and ended up being a fine addition to the AC, and coming around to a much
better understanding of how the system works.  IMO, it was well worth
having this individual on the AC, for them, for the AC and for the
community.

People come into and out of the numbers community for a variety of
reasons.  "How it works" can be taught -- the AC used to run training for
all AC members every January.  The rotational nature of the elections
ensures there are folks that know a good chunk of the history. Leif and
Chris were coming in around the time I was leaving.  Andrew has followed
and participated in policy before I was on the AC.  I have no doubt John
Curran, Rob Seastrom, staff and others in the community would be happy to
help any AC member that had questions about how or why something was done.
The mailing list and meeting archives are also available.

Listening is a huge part of the AC job-- listening to all the stakeholders
-- community, staff, board, and other AC members.  As engineers there is a
tendency to try to solve everything, to jump in and cut people off, to not
be aware of our biases, or to argue toward the position we've
already chosen.  It's hard to take everything in, consider and balance it
all.  The AC is designed to be large enough to encourage representation
from different parts of the community.   It's worth keeping that need for
diversity in mind as you vote -- you certainly wouldn't want the entire AC
to be large ISP's just as you wouldn't want it to be all brokers.

If you aren't sure about a candidate, email them.  Reach out and ask for a
1:1 and ask them questions.  Are they enthusiastic about policy?  Can they
lay out different points of view on a given policy?  Can they see the
broader picture of what impact a change may have?  Do they hear and
understand your concerns?  Do they have the time and energy to give?  Can
they play well with others?  More important than you may realize, as the
work of the AC can ground to a halt if everyone is argumentative.

It used to be that sitting AC members tried to be a bit reserved about
their own opinion because the number of people who contribute are a narrow
slice of the entire community.  We wanted to encourage discussion so we
could determine support, but not dominate the conversation.

 --Heather Schiller

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:00 PM Fernando Frediani 
wrote:

> I think I undertand what Bill is trying to put and for me it is much
> simpler.
>
> How one can put his/her name available for candidacy if doesn't
> participate on discussions and mainly doesn't properly undertand the
> mechanics of how this all works ?
> I don't think it needs to be a written requirement but anyone voting
> should not vote because the candidate is a good chap, a good family father
> or a great technical expert or manager. It must understand how it works,
> what is involved, the process, the historic, etc and without speaking
> publiclly how can you evaluate and give your vote the the person ?
>
> Once in AC in my view the person should be as quiet as possible and
> refrain from giving even personal opinions about any proposals. I don't
> beleive in that thing "taking my hat off". There are not 2 persons there.
>
> But while community only it is expected someone putting his/her name for
> candidacy should have been active and be able to show he/she is up for the
> role.
>
> Fernando
>
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, 14:37 Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML, 
> wrote:
>
>> William Herrin   writes:
>> >
>> >I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
>> >outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
>> >a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
>> >Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
>> >to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
>> >least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
>> >demonstrated."
>>
>> Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under
>> advisement.
>>
>> Leif Sawyer
>> AC Chair
>>
>> 
>> Leif Sawyer
>> GCI | he/him | Engineer, Network & Systems Delivery Engineering
>> t: 907-351-1535 | w: www.gci.com
>> ___
>> 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 

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

On Oct 26, 2023, at 21:01, Martin Hannigan  wrote:On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 23:51 Fernando Frediani  wrote:Well said.

I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing 
compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with 
evolution and entrepreneurship.I find it weird that people still answer every business problem with “IPv6”.  If the Internet wasn’t a business nome of us would be here. One only need look at legacy allocations (and boundaries) to understand that its always been understood there are coexisting interests that can align. Including the role we all created for brokerage. They didn’t just fall out of the sky. YMMV,-M

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 11:32 AM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
 wrote:
> That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none
> of the fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion
> amongst the broader community.

This was part of my thinking when I elected to raise the issue here
instead of the general members list. The other factor was that my
complaint was about the candidates' presence -here- not there.

I have carefully avoided mentioning candidates by name and would
encourage other participants to do the same.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[Fernando Frediani]

This time strangely I will have to agree with Owen.

This is the forum to discuss this topic that concerns everyone here. It is
very pertinent. Thanks we are having this discussion than not having.
And as far as I saw nothing got out of the controll and everyone is being
able to put up their view and experience without limitation.

Why direct it to a less number of people or event to staff only if it
concerns very much here ?

Fernando

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, 15:33 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML, 
wrote:

> That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of
> the fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion amongst the
> broader community.
>
> While it’s true that the general-members list reached the electorate, the
> impact of the AC is felt not only by the electorate, but also by the
> broader community.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Oct 27, 2023, at 11:22, Michael Abejuela  wrote:
> >
> > Hello PPML participants,
> >
> > I have observed that the PPML discussions have become increasingly
> focused on election related items.  As this is the forum for policy
> discussions, and the fact that we are in the middle of an election cycle, I
> would ask that the participants provide their election-related suggestions
> through the more appropriate avenues stated below.  There are a variety of
> considerations that are being discussed, and in order to make sure they are
> properly catalogued and taken into due consideration for future election
> cycles, we have various avenues to provide such feedback that are more
> appropriate than PPML:
> >
> > 1)The General Members Mailing list;
> > 2)Through the ARIN ACSP intake; and
> > 3)Directly to electi...@arin.net
> >
> > ARIN may also seek community input after the elections are completed for
> feedback and suggestions on future election cycles; and given that there is
> so much discussion on this topic, that will definitely be taken into
> consideration.
> >
> > Thank you for the robust discussions and participation,
> > -Michael
> > --
> > Michael R. Abejuela
> > General Counsel
> > ARIN
> > PO Box 232290
> > Centreville, VA 20120
> > (703) 227-9875 (p)
> > (703) 263-0111 (f)
> > mabeju...@arin.net 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 10/27/23, 2:03 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Richard Laager" <
> arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net  on behalf
> of rlaa...@wiktel.com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 2023-10-27 12:36, Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> >> William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> writes:
> >>>
> >>> I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
> >>> outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
> >>> a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
> >>> Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
> >>> to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
> >>> least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
> >>> demonstrated."
> >>
> >> Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under
> advisement.
> >
> >
> > It might not be best to go from zero to hard requirement.
> >
> >
> > In other words, _if_ this is being added as a thing that the NomCom
> > should care about, I recommend starting with this being one of the
> > factors that differentiates "Qualified" and "Well Qualified". If that
> > works out and _if_ the desire is there to make it a hard requirement,
> > that can be done a year or two later.
> >
> >
> > I'm not currently expressing a position on whether this should be a
> > factor to consider. I haven't given it enough thought.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Richard
> >
> >
> > ___
> > ARIN-PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net  ARIN-PPML@arin.net>).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <
> 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.
>
> ___
> 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.
>
___

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

Thanks for the clarification. Even if the AC had chosen one set of advice over mine, I viewed it as a judgement call that could go either way and was not intending to come across as critical of the decision. I had no doubt that I had been heard and intended to reinforce that belief. OwenOn Oct 26, 2023, at 20:25, Douglas Camin  wrote:







Owen – 
 
Appreciate your input here. Related to the policy you reference about the definition of Allocation. As the lead shepherd for that policy, I will share that your (and other) feedback about the definition was
 heard (I referenced it in the slide presentation specifically.) 
 
Not changing the language immediately was not a result of picking one side or another, but more about keeping the draft language stable to allow for additional in-person community feedback at the public policy
 meeting. The policy had undergone many changes in August and September with final revisions from staff and legal review at the end of September. Given that, it seemed prudent to allow the as-written language to elicit a complete cycle of feedback both on PPML
 and in person. My apologies if that understanding wasn’t conveyed. The feedback received at the microphone and in the room was helpful in shaping the understanding for the next steps.

 
Hope that helps – 
 
 
Doug
 

 
 
--
Douglas J. Camin
ARIN Advisory Council
d...@dougcamin.com

 



From:
ARIN-PPML  on behalf of Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML 
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 1:30 PM
To: William Herrin 
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates




> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:47, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:28 AM Andrew Dul  wrote:
>> On 10/26/2023 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding
>>> policy proposals to developing policy proposals.
>> 
>> I realize that might be a distinction with out a difference, but I
>> wanted to point it out.
> 
> Shepherds guide folks through process. They don't edit proposals.
> Today's AC does much more of the latter than the former.
> 
> 
>> From a policy development perspective the AC's role has not changed
>> significantly in more than a decade.
> 
> I can still be sore about changes made a decade ago.
> 
> 
>> Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal?
> 
> I don't think that's the problem. The AC members are some of the best
> informed folks around. It would be a waste to be unable to leverage
> their ideas. The problem is the next step where they get together and
> edit them privately. This is inherently exclusionary of everybody else
> and IMO is uncorrectable as long as the AC has the unilateral power to
> edit an author's proposal.

In my experience, the AC works very hard to remain true to the author’s
original intent and involve author(s) in the editorial process of a policy.
The AC is also extremely receptive to whatever community input is
available on a policy in most cases.

The only recent counterexample I can point to is efforts to wordsmith
a proposal that sought to redefine assignment and (slightly) expand the
definition of allocation. You and I both wanted to choose a new term,
Mr. Curran was very clearly opposed to doing so. The AC obviously
chose to weigh Mr. Curran’s guidance more heavily than ours.

At the end of the day, that’s not one of the hills I’m willing to die on.

I don’t take that as an indication that the AC is conspiring with Mr. Curran
behind my back. That debate was quite open and public.

I have seen the AC depart from the author(s)’ intent in the following
circumstances:

+   Significant community pressure to go in a different direction
+   The author becomes unresponsive or unwilling to accommodate
    community feedback

Otherwise, I’ve seen the AC work very hard to remain true to the author(s)’
original intent, even to the point of recognizing that editing a proposal would
be disingenuous and authoring a new proposal as an alternative rather than
override an existing proposal.

> What should be disallowed to AC members is:
> 
> 1. Editing proposals, except by the individual who authored it (which
> if an AC member should be only that individual).

I think this would be significantly more dysfunctional than the current
process, TBH. The most likely result would be the AC abandoning more
proposals and spinning up competing proposals as a workaround.

> 2. Private debate about proposals between AC members. Restrict the AC
> meetings to voting on proposals without debate or advocacy. Require
> the discussion and debate to happen on PPML.

ROFLMAO… This would not be an improvement of the process. This would
be chaos. You could sooner ban hallway discussions of proposals at the meetings.


Owen

___
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving th

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of the 
fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion amongst the broader 
community. 

While it’s true that the general-members list reached the electorate, the 
impact of the AC is felt not only by the electorate, but also by the broader 
community. 

Owen


> On Oct 27, 2023, at 11:22, Michael Abejuela  wrote:
> 
> Hello PPML participants,
> 
> I have observed that the PPML discussions have become increasingly focused on 
> election related items.  As this is the forum for policy discussions, and the 
> fact that we are in the middle of an election cycle, I would ask that the 
> participants provide their election-related suggestions through the more 
> appropriate avenues stated below.  There are a variety of considerations that 
> are being discussed, and in order to make sure they are properly catalogued 
> and taken into due consideration for future election cycles, we have various 
> avenues to provide such feedback that are more appropriate than PPML:
> 
> 1)The General Members Mailing list;
> 2)Through the ARIN ACSP intake; and
> 3)Directly to electi...@arin.net
> 
> ARIN may also seek community input after the elections are completed for 
> feedback and suggestions on future election cycles; and given that there is 
> so much discussion on this topic, that will definitely be taken into 
> consideration.
> 
> Thank you for the robust discussions and participation,
> -Michael 
> -- 
> Michael R. Abejuela 
> General Counsel 
> ARIN 
> PO Box 232290 
> Centreville, VA 20120 
> (703) 227-9875 (p) 
> (703) 263-0111 (f) 
> mabeju...@arin.net  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/27/23, 2:03 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Richard Laager" 
> mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> on behalf of 
> rlaa...@wiktel.com > wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2023-10-27 12:36, Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>> William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> writes:
>>> 
>>> I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
>>> outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
>>> a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
>>> Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
>>> to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
>>> least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
>>> demonstrated."
>> 
>> Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under 
>> advisement.
> 
> 
> It might not be best to go from zero to hard requirement.
> 
> 
> In other words, _if_ this is being added as a thing that the NomCom 
> should care about, I recommend starting with this being one of the 
> factors that differentiates "Qualified" and "Well Qualified". If that 
> works out and _if_ the desire is there to make it a hard requirement, 
> that can be done a year or two later.
> 
> 
> I'm not currently expressing a position on whether this should be a 
> factor to consider. I haven't given it enough thought.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Richard
> 
> 
> ___
> 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.

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

[Michael Abejuela]

Hello PPML participants,

I have observed that the PPML discussions have become increasingly focused on 
election related items.  As this is the forum for policy discussions, and the 
fact that we are in the middle of an election cycle, I would ask that the 
participants provide their election-related suggestions through the more 
appropriate avenues stated below.  There are a variety of considerations that 
are being discussed, and in order to make sure they are properly catalogued and 
taken into due consideration for future election cycles, we have various 
avenues to provide such feedback that are more appropriate than PPML:

1)  The General Members Mailing list;
2)  Through the ARIN ACSP intake; and
3)  Directly to electi...@arin.net

ARIN may also seek community input after the elections are completed for 
feedback and suggestions on future election cycles; and given that there is so 
much discussion on this topic, that will definitely be taken into consideration.

Thank you for the robust discussions and participation,
-Michael 
-- 
Michael R. Abejuela 
General Counsel 
ARIN 
PO Box 232290 
Centreville, VA 20120 
(703) 227-9875 (p) 
(703) 263-0111 (f) 
mabeju...@arin.net  







On 10/27/23, 2:03 PM, "ARIN-PPML on behalf of Richard Laager" 
mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> on behalf of 
rlaa...@wiktel.com > wrote:


On 2023-10-27 12:36, Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> writes:
>>
>> I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
>> outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
>> a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
>> Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
>> to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
>> least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
>> demonstrated."
> 
> Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under 
> advisement.


It might not be best to go from zero to hard requirement.


In other words, _if_ this is being added as a thing that the NomCom 
should care about, I recommend starting with this being one of the 
factors that differentiates "Qualified" and "Well Qualified". If that 
works out and _if_ the desire is there to make it a hard requirement, 
that can be done a year or two later.


I'm not currently expressing a position on whether this should be a 
factor to consider. I haven't given it enough thought.


-- 
Richard


___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Richard Laager]

On 2023-10-27 12:36, Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML wrote:

William Herrin   writes:


I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
demonstrated."


Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under 
advisement.


It might not be best to go from zero to hard requirement.

In other words, _if_ this is being added as a thing that the NomCom 
should care about, I recommend starting with this being one of the 
factors that differentiates "Qualified" and "Well Qualified". If that 
works out and _if_ the desire is there to make it a hard requirement, 
that can be done a year or two later.


I'm not currently expressing a position on whether this should be a 
factor to consider. I haven't given it enough thought.


--
Richard

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Fernando Frediani]

I think I undertand what Bill is trying to put and for me it is much
simpler.

How one can put his/her name available for candidacy if doesn't participate
on discussions and mainly doesn't properly undertand the mechanics of how
this all works ?
I don't think it needs to be a written requirement but anyone voting should
not vote because the candidate is a good chap, a good family father or a
great technical expert or manager. It must understand how it works, what is
involved, the process, the historic, etc and without speaking publiclly how
can you evaluate and give your vote the the person ?

Once in AC in my view the person should be as quiet as possible and refrain
from giving even personal opinions about any proposals. I don't beleive in
that thing "taking my hat off". There are not 2 persons there.

But while community only it is expected someone putting his/her name for
candidacy should have been active and be able to show he/she is up for the
role.

Fernando

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023, 14:37 Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML, 
wrote:

> William Herrin   writes:
> >
> >I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
> >outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
> >a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
> >Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
> >to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
> >least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
> >demonstrated."
>
> Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under
> advisement.
>
> Leif Sawyer
> AC Chair
>
> 
> Leif Sawyer
> GCI | he/him | Engineer, Network & Systems Delivery Engineering
> t: 907-351-1535 | w: www.gci.com
> ___
> 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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML]

William Herrin   writes:
>
>I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
>outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
>a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
>Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
>to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
>least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
>demonstrated."

Thank you for your suggestion and clarification, and I'll take it under 
advisement.

Leif Sawyer
AC Chair


Leif Sawyer
GCI | he/him | Engineer, Network & Systems Delivery Engineering
t: 907-351-1535 | w: www.gci.com
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 9:46 AM Leif Sawyer  wrote:
> you can't
> evaluate each AC member based on their public interactions here on the 
> mailing list,

Hi Leif,

Not only can I do so, when I voted I did.  I regret only that because
I procrastinated until the last minute, many of my colleagues will
have already voted without considering this vector.

> that in itself is in no way indicative of their experience or ability to 
> shepherd policies
> in a fair and impartial manner.

As I previously stated, I think the notion that AC members are mere
shepherds is a farce. The AC is the body that writes and develops
policy for ARIN. It hasn't been driven by the general public, with the
AC merely operating as shepherds, for many years now.


> All that said, if you feel strongly that AC members need to post and interact 
> with
> the community as part of their duties- as current chair, I can take that under
> advisement and look for additional community support for that stance, and then
> work with the Board of Trustees and Staff & Legal, prior to addressing any 
> potential changes.

I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
to PPML while not an AC member and you have to speak at the mike at
least once at an ARIN meeting. Else you're rated "qualifications not
demonstrated."

Surely that's not too much to ask of folks who would serve on the AC?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML]

>
> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of William Herrin
>
>Since that was me, I want to clarify a nuance lest it be missed: 9 of
>the 14 candidates had never posted to PPML except (in a couple cases)
>in their official capacities as members of the AC. Not. Even. Once.
>
>I get that some folks' psyches are not as flame retardant as mine and
>>fault no one for bowing out of the occasionally acrimonious tails of
>some of the debates here, but folks on the AC are supposed to be
>thoroughly engaged with the community and a big part of that community
>is: Right. Here. These nine folks have been missing in action. Because
>they aren't and evidently have never been engaged with this community,
>they aren't IMHO, qualified to assess the community's consensus nor
>well qualified to write policy that serves interests other than the
>ones they're personally familiar with.
>
>The folks I'm talking about, and you know who you are, should really
>do something to cure that lack of engagement.

Bill -  

Currently there is no standing requirement within the AC to "interact" with
members of the PPML.

They do, however, read the messages generated here, and reference them
during our monthly meetings as well as at the face-to-face meetings.

While I can understand that you may personally feel frustrated that you can't
evaluate each AC member based on their public interactions here on the mailing 
list,
that in itself is in no way indicative of their experience or ability to 
shepherd policies
in a fair and impartial manner. 

All that said, if you feel strongly that AC members need to post and interact 
with
the community as part of their duties- as current chair, I can take that under
advisement and look for additional community support for that stance, and then
work with the Board of Trustees and Staff & Legal, prior to addressing any 
potential changes.

Now, just to be clear, would those be qualitative metrics, or quantitative 
metrics in determining
whether any particular AC member has interacted on PPML "enough" ?  Because if 
it's
going to be a requirement, we're going to need some method of validating that 
they're
meeting the minimums, right?


Thanks,
Leif Sawyer
AC Chair


Leif Sawyer
GCI | he/him | Engineer, Network & Systems Delivery Engineering
t: 907-351-1535 | w: www.gci.com
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:05 AM Christian Tacit  wrote:
> 3.  For my own part, in the nine years I have been on the AC,
> I have not observed COIs leading to improper decision-making.

Hi Chris,

Yes and no. The insidious nature of conflict of interest is that it
leads a person to earnestly believe that a choice which is bad for
their employer is also bad for the regulator. Can you point to an AC
decision that caused trouble for one of the AC members' employers? I'd
bet you cannot.


> 4.  Finally, I want to address the comment that started this
> whole thread, which relates to participation in PPML not
> being broader. I think Community members should not underestimate
> that some individuals (although I am not one of them) will not
> necessarily feel comfortable participating in debates if they
> perceive the discussion to contain harsh language or acrimony,

Since that was me, I want to clarify a nuance lest it be missed: 9 of
the 14 candidates had never posted to PPML except (in a couple cases)
in their official capacities as members of the AC. Not. Even. Once.

I get that some folks' psyches are not as flame retardant as mine and
fault no one for bowing out of the occasionally acrimonious tails of
some of the debates here, but folks on the AC are supposed to be
thoroughly engaged with the community and a big part of that community
is: Right. Here. These nine folks have been missing in action. Because
they aren't and evidently have never been engaged with this community,
they aren't IMHO, qualified to assess the community's consensus nor
well qualified to write policy that serves interests other than the
ones they're personally familiar with.

The folks I'm talking about, and you know who you are, should really
do something to cure that lack of engagement.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Christian Tacit]

Dear Community Members,

I have followed the discussion on participation on the mailing lists and COI 
with great interest and would like to make the following observations:

1.  As just one example, a party that seeks to get large quantities of IPv4 
addresses can have a financial interest that is just as large or even larger 
than that of a broker, the difference being that the financial outlays the 
large party expends to acquire IPv4 addresses are infrequent and lumpy but very 
large, whereas the IPv4 address broker's income stream is comprised of smaller, 
commission-based income, and is steadier because it results from more frequent 
transactions. The point being that all parties that hold or can exert control 
over numbering resources have COIs when sitting on the AC or board.

2.  Despite the pervasive COI issue discussed above, ARIN has been set up 
in a manner that makes it highly unlikely for policies to pass due to 
mismanaged COIs. This is because the AC is a large body of 15 individuals 
elected by a diverse Community, and as such, the COI that each AC member brings 
is not the same as the COI others do, and some don't have any at all because 
they hold no resources and do not represent anyone who does. The diversity and 
size of the AC body not only constitutes an anti-trust shield for ARIN; it also 
acts as a COI shield. With the board increasing in size, this safeguard is also 
manifesting to a greater extent in that body as well. Speaking of the board, 
given the fiduciary duties of trustees, they have a positive obligation to 
recuse themselves from discussions in COI situations and they must be mindful 
of discharging that duty and ensuring that approved policies do not improperly 
increase the risk to the ARIN organization and its mission. The bottom line 
 for me is that the institutional structure of ARIN specifically mitigates the 
potential impact of COIs to the point where COIs do not result in improper 
policy outcomes. 

3.  For my own part, in the nine years I have been on the AC, I have not 
observed COIs leading to improper decision-making. While Community members may 
disagree with various policies that have been adopted as it is their right to 
do, I cannot see evidence of any policies that have passed due to improperly 
managed COIs. The policies that have been adopted have all garnered significant 
Community support. Instead, I can tell you that, in the time I have served on 
the AC, I have witnessed my colleagues acting collectively for the benefit of 
the Community as they perceive it, regardless of the specific interests of 
individual members. More specifically, Amy Potter has been exceptionally 
careful not to allow her inherent COI to affect how she discharged her duty on 
the AC and has earned the respect of her AC colleagues. She certainly has mine.

4.  Finally, I want to address the comment that started this whole thread, 
which relates to participation in PPML not being broader. I think Community 
members should not underestimate that some individuals (although I am not one 
of them) will not necessarily feel comfortable participating in debates if they 
perceive the discussion to contain harsh language or acrimony, even if the 
posts are well within the boundaries of what the Mailing List AUP allows. Email 
posts are inherently a stark form of communication, since they are devoid of 
the context that people have when they can listen to each other's voices and 
see each other's body language. For that reason, it is particularly important 
for people to vet their drafts messages before posting them (e.g., by drafting 
but not posting right away) and think about how someone only reading the posts 
without human interactive context might interpret them. I think if Community 
members strive to do that to a greater degree while continuing to ex
 press their views vigorously, it may attract boarder participation, as people 
will feel safer in expressing their views.

Chris Tacit

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 23:51 Fernando Frediani 
wrote:

> Well said.
>
> I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing
> compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with
> evolution and entrepreneurship.



I find it weird that people still answer every business problem with
“IPv6”.  If the Internet wasn’t a business nome of us would be here.

One only need look at legacy allocations (and boundaries) to understand
that its always been understood there are coexisting interests that can
align. Including the role we all created for brokerage.

They didn’t just fall out of the sky.

YMMV,

-M<
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Fernando Frediani]

On 26/10/2023 19:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:




Almost every member of the AC and Board works for a company that is 
either transferring (buy or sell) IPv4 addresses, on the waitlist, 
consulting on obtaining number resources or just plain "needers". Most 
have some or all their responsibilities around it. I'm not all saying 
the members or candidates don't have integrity, I'm saying that the 
conflicts are more real than some would like to believe. One only has 
to view the list of transfers between buyers or look at the waitlist 
to scope the size of a conflict. Personally, it feels like the biggest 
challenge and risk around conflicts is having more than one person on 
the entire body from a single company or its controlled entities.


Hi Martin

That has never been a problem. Everyone working in building internet 
being an ISP, a cloud provider or anything related need the IP space to 
connect people therefore for the propose they were established and have 
always been there. IP space certainly was not created to be made 
available for renting or being traded "per se" without any connectivity 
services attached for example. This doesn't build any internet in the 
region by itself.


One thing is to have someone deciding things alongside with others with 
the same propose to build internet and another would be someone taking a 
chance on a situation of scarcity that is not good to the community 
being able to make certain decisions that may subvert the main propose 
of IP addresses.




Warm regards,

-M<



___
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 contacti...@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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Fernando Frediani]

Well said.

I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing 
compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with 
evolution and entrepreneurship.


When you buy a router, a server, any network equipment it is yours. You 
may do whatever you want with them, develop technology, sell services 
and charge as much as you wish.


IP space it is not yours, nor the brokers. It is a shared resource that 
has a reason that many keep forgetting does not belong to any company 
specifically and are intended to develop the internet and connect 
people. There is a reason it is regulated and should be distributed with 
fairness by a neutral entity that doesn't have financial interests in it 
with rules developed by those who are really building internet.


It is not difficult to distinguish between services that makes a good to 
the internet and really develop it and those who mostly speculate about 
a resource that doesn't even belong to any of these actors.


Fernando

On 26/10/2023 22:10, Jay Hennigan wrote:

On 10/26/23 16:35, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:


OK, but consider:

Those allocating addresses to customers at a cloud provider — Same exact
issues.

Those allocating addresses to internal usage at a CDN — Same exact
issues.

My point is that there is nothing unique about the inherent COI here 
vs. virtually

any other class of user of ARIN services.


I disagree. Those who are in the ISP, cloud provider or CDN business 
are in the business of putting the addresses to use to benefit the 
Internet community. Number resources are something that are needed for 
them to do business.


Address brokers view number resources as a commodity to be bought, 
sold and arbitraged. They don't care about the Internet community. 
CIDR blocks could just as well be pork bellies or oil and gas futures 
as far as they are concerned. Address brokers fare better when number 
resources are scarce, as they're more valuable. The others you 
mentioned do better when the resources are plentiful.


Do we want those that personally profit by addresses being scarce in 
charge of determining ARIN policy?



___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Douglas Camin]

Owen –

Appreciate your input here. Related to the policy you reference about the 
definition of Allocation. As the lead shepherd for that policy, I will share 
that your (and other) feedback about the definition was heard (I referenced it 
in the slide presentation specifically.)

Not changing the language immediately was not a result of picking one side or 
another, but more about keeping the draft language stable to allow for 
additional in-person community feedback at the public policy meeting. The 
policy had undergone many changes in August and September with final revisions 
from staff and legal review at the end of September. Given that, it seemed 
prudent to allow the as-written language to elicit a complete cycle of feedback 
both on PPML and in person. My apologies if that understanding wasn’t conveyed. 
The feedback received at the microphone and in the room was helpful in shaping 
the understanding for the next steps.

Hope that helps –


Doug



--
Douglas J. Camin
ARIN Advisory Council
d...@dougcamin.com

From: ARIN-PPML  on behalf of Owen DeLong via 
ARIN-PPML 
Date: Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 1:30 PM
To: William Herrin 
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates


> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:47, William Herrin  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:28 AM Andrew Dul  wrote:
>> On 10/26/2023 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding
>>> policy proposals to developing policy proposals.
>>
>> I realize that might be a distinction with out a difference, but I
>> wanted to point it out.
>
> Shepherds guide folks through process. They don't edit proposals.
> Today's AC does much more of the latter than the former.
>
>
>> From a policy development perspective the AC's role has not changed
>> significantly in more than a decade.
>
> I can still be sore about changes made a decade ago.
>
>
>> Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal?
>
> I don't think that's the problem. The AC members are some of the best
> informed folks around. It would be a waste to be unable to leverage
> their ideas. The problem is the next step where they get together and
> edit them privately. This is inherently exclusionary of everybody else
> and IMO is uncorrectable as long as the AC has the unilateral power to
> edit an author's proposal.

In my experience, the AC works very hard to remain true to the author’s
original intent and involve author(s) in the editorial process of a policy.
The AC is also extremely receptive to whatever community input is
available on a policy in most cases.

The only recent counterexample I can point to is efforts to wordsmith
a proposal that sought to redefine assignment and (slightly) expand the
definition of allocation. You and I both wanted to choose a new term,
Mr. Curran was very clearly opposed to doing so. The AC obviously
chose to weigh Mr. Curran’s guidance more heavily than ours.

At the end of the day, that’s not one of the hills I’m willing to die on.

I don’t take that as an indication that the AC is conspiring with Mr. Curran
behind my back. That debate was quite open and public.

I have seen the AC depart from the author(s)’ intent in the following
circumstances:

+   Significant community pressure to go in a different direction
+   The author becomes unresponsive or unwilling to accommodate
community feedback

Otherwise, I’ve seen the AC work very hard to remain true to the author(s)’
original intent, even to the point of recognizing that editing a proposal would
be disingenuous and authoring a new proposal as an alternative rather than
override an existing proposal.

> What should be disallowed to AC members is:
>
> 1. Editing proposals, except by the individual who authored it (which
> if an AC member should be only that individual).

I think this would be significantly more dysfunctional than the current
process, TBH. The most likely result would be the AC abandoning more
proposals and spinning up competing proposals as a workaround.

> 2. Private debate about proposals between AC members. Restrict the AC
> meetings to voting on proposals without debate or advocacy. Require
> the discussion and debate to happen on PPML.

ROFLMAO… This would not be an improvement of the process. This would
be chaos. You could sooner ban hallway discussions of proposals at the meetings.


Owen

___
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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.arin.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Farin-ppml=05%7C01%7C%7C8a89f9e636ae4891c29308dbd649396c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Mark Andrews]

Did you follow the instructions at the end of *every* email from this list
for how to remove yourself?  Did you follow the instructions to contact
i...@arin.net if you have problems doing that?

Mark

> On 27 Oct 2023, at 01:39, Olerato Manyaapelo  
> wrote:
> 
> How many times must I ask you guys to remove me from your mailing lists? I am 
> not interested in receiving these emails.
> C.O Manyaapelo
> 
> 
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 16:22, William Herrin  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Mike Burns  wrote:
> > And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to
> > IP brokers would be a point in their favor considering they
> > are the people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an
> ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the
> conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived
> plan for addressing it.
> 
> Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a
> job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully
> managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I
> couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to
> conflicts of interest.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> ___
> 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.

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742  INTERNET: ma...@isc.org

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 21:10 Jay Hennigan  wrote:

> On 10/26/23 16:35, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>
> > OK, but consider:
> >
> > Those allocating addresses to customers at a cloud provider — Same exact
> > issues.
> >
> > Those allocating addresses to internal usage at a CDN — Same exact
> > issues.
> >
> > My point is that there is nothing unique about the inherent COI here vs.
> virtually
> > any other class of user of ARIN services.
>
> I disagree. Those who are in the ISP, cloud provider or CDN business are
> in the business of putting the addresses to use to benefit the Internet
> community. Number resources are something that are needed for them to do
> business.
>
> Address brokers view number resources as a commodity to be bought, sold
> and arbitraged. They don't care about the Internet community. CIDR
> blocks could just as well be pork bellies or oil and gas futures as far
> as they are concerned. Address brokers fare better when number resources
> are scarce, as they're more valuable. The others you mentioned do better
> when the resources are plentiful.
>
> Do we want those that personally profit by addresses being scarce in
> charge of determining ARIN policy?



“Brokers” are aligned. They need a good community and policy to make
money.  Just like everyone else. Address brokerage is a real business like
CDN, cloud or ISPs..Their job is to put addresses to use which was the
purpose of the market.  Its taken awhile but it seems to work with little
(known) corruption. Having them on the board in 2023 would be very helpful
IMHO.

$0.02
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Jay Hennigan]

On 10/26/23 16:35, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:


OK, but consider:

Those allocating addresses to customers at a cloud provider — Same exact
issues.

Those allocating addresses to internal usage at a CDN — Same exact
issues.

My point is that there is nothing unique about the inherent COI here vs. 
virtually
any other class of user of ARIN services.


I disagree. Those who are in the ISP, cloud provider or CDN business are 
in the business of putting the addresses to use to benefit the Internet 
community. Number resources are something that are needed for them to do 
business.


Address brokers view number resources as a commodity to be bought, sold 
and arbitraged. They don't care about the Internet community. CIDR 
blocks could just as well be pork bellies or oil and gas futures as far 
as they are concerned. Address brokers fare better when number resources 
are scarce, as they're more valuable. The others you mentioned do better 
when the resources are plentiful.


Do we want those that personally profit by addresses being scarce in 
charge of determining ARIN policy?


--
Jay Hennigan  |  j...@impulse.net  |  CCIE #7880  |  WB6RDV
Chief Network Architect  |  Impulse Advanced Communications
direct 805.884.6323  |  fax 805.880.1523  |  www.impulse.net

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 15:24, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:23 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>>> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:11, William Herrin  wrote:
>>> Respectfully, this means you misunderstand the nature of Conflict of
>>> Interest.
>> 
>> Sure, but what does an address broker who is transferring addresses
>> in accordance with ARIN policies and acting as a legitimate facilitator
>> do that is an inherent COI?
> 
> What conflict of interest does an address broker who is transferring
> addresses in accordance with ARIN policies have with being an ARIN
> decision maker writing and setting the policies by which ARIN governs
> when the broker is allowed or not allowed to transfer addresses?

OK, but consider:

Those allocating addresses to customers at a cloud provider — Same exact
issues.

Those allocating addresses to internal usage at a CDN — Same exact
issues.

My point is that there is nothing unique about the inherent COI here vs. 
virtually
any other class of user of ARIN services.

Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Martin Hannigan]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 12:11 PM Dustin Moses 
wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> I agree with you that having a candidate disclose a potential COI is a
> major point, the reality is in a multi-stakeholder community led
> organization such as ARIN, wouldn't most qualified candidates have a
> conflict of interest when it comes to policy? I think there is a fair
> handed approach to the multiple mindset approach that is the AC as well as
> policy that is actively driven by community participation. If you see
> policy that seems skewed, then actively deny it in the PPML and at the
> general meeting. This is a benefit of the open Policy Development Process
> that ARIN has adopted recently. Unless there is clear "industry takeover"
> of multiple candidates in the same space, I don't really see the conflict
> of interest but rather a separate state of opinion.
>
> I think it is great you are asking for candidates to participate in a
> public forum of opinion and get to hear the words directly from the
> candidates themselves. I am sure other people have had similar concerns and
> the PPML is a great way to raise them.
>


Almost every member of the AC and Board works for a company that is either
transferring (buy or sell) IPv4 addresses, on the waitlist, consulting on
obtaining number resources or just plain "needers". Most have some or all
their responsibilities around it. I'm not all saying the members or
candidates don't have integrity, I'm saying that the conflicts are more
real than some would like to believe. One only has to view the list of
transfers between buyers or look at the waitlist to scope the size of a
conflict. Personally, it feels like the biggest challenge and risk around
conflicts is having more than one person on the entire body from a single
company or its controlled entities.

Warm regards,

-M<
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 11:23 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:11, William Herrin  wrote:
> > Respectfully, this means you misunderstand the nature of Conflict of
> > Interest.
>
> Sure, but what does an address broker who is transferring addresses
> in accordance with ARIN policies and acting as a legitimate facilitator
> do that is an inherent COI?

What conflict of interest does an address broker who is transferring
addresses in accordance with ARIN policies have with being an ARIN
decision maker writing and setting the policies by which ARIN governs
when the broker is allowed or not allowed to transfer addresses?

Please tell me you're not serious.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Amy Potter]

Hi all,

Having spent a substantial amount of time over the past decade thinking
about how to manage this exact conflict, I figured I weigh in. I am
currently serving out the remainder of my final year on the AC, so I really
don't have a stake here in terms of trying to get re-elected, but I think
the insights I have to offer are relevant. I was an IP address broker from
2012-2019, and was first elected to the AC in 2015. I was neither a member
nor a resource holder for the first several years I served on the AC. I
believe there is absolutely a conflict that exists for those currently
working as an IP address broker (or any other form of financial
intermediary), and that this conflict is of a slightly different nature
than the conflicts other members of the AC may have based on working for
companies that are impacted by ARIN policies. Previous affiliation with a
broker is only a conflict in my opinion if they continue to receive some
sort of payments based on IP address sales. Nonetheless I think this
conflict can be managed by 1) the structural safeguards already in place,
and 2) the AC member understanding the conflict and having a plan in place
to deal with it. I'll get into the details of how this plays out below, but
the TLDR of it is that I think the safeguards in place and the current
culture of the AC provides quite a bit of protection; that a broker
behaving ethically can provide substantial relevant insight and value to
the AC under the right set of circumstances; and that successfully managing
the conflict comes down to full transparency and recusing oneself at the
appropriate times.

There are a number of safeguards already built into the system during the
election process and through the AC's own processes. Candidates running for
the AC provide bios which include a section where they are asked about
conflicts. They also provide details about prior work history. So long as
these sections are answered honestly I think this provides the community
itself with notice of potential conflicts so that members may vote in an
informed manner, or seek additional feedback from the candidate if they
have any questions. There are also options available to ARIN and the nomcom
to deal with potentially false responses.

As for the way the AC itself operates, at the annual face to face meeting
each January members of the AC disclose their current employer, role, and
potential conflicts to one another. At the end of each monthly meeting,
there is an opportunity for AC members to disclose any changes in
employment or affiliation so that other AC members are able to evaluate the
things each AC member says and does in light of their affiliations and
sources of compensation. Throughout my time on the AC, the culture of the
group has taken this obligation very seriously, and members have taken
affiliations and conflicts into account when evaluating the contributions
of others and decisions on how to vote.  AC members also must update their
bios that are published on ARIN's website to accurately reflect their
employment and affiliation, in order to provide continued transparency to
the community.

It's also important to remember the role of the AC in facilitating the
policy development process, and the actual opportunities to advance ones
own position (which do exist, but there are limits to that). When a new
policy proposal comes in the Chair of the AC assigns shepherds to work with
the author. If a proposal is authored by a member of the AC, that person
cannot be a shepherd of the proposal. The chair also considers who to
assign each proposal to, taking into account potential conflicts.Shepherds
work with the author to ensure ensure the proposal 1) has a clear problem
statement, 2) proposes changes to the text of NRPM, and 3) falls within the
scope of ARIN policy. Once the shepherds are satisfied the proposal meets
these requirements they bring it to the AC to vote on whether those three
criteria are satisfied, and if it passes, the proposal comes onto the
docket as a draft policy. At that point, yes, the "power of the pen"
(ability to edit) shifts from the author to the shepherds. The shepherds
make edits based on community feedback (mainly from  ppml and public policy
consultations), however there is quite a bit of discretion in language
choice--often times there's quite a bit of wordsmithing that goes on to try
to ensure that the proposed change to the language of NRPM actually
achieves the thing it's trying to achieve. Members of the AC often
collaborate with one another on this wordsmithing, and this is where
industry expertise is extremely helpful. As a broker I provided quite a bit
of feedback to my peers about language choices based on my experience of
how they would likely be applied, what potential opportunities for
loopholes this left, etc. If a broker can fulfill this function ethically
it can be very very useful. One of the most difficult parts of being on the
AC is trying to make sure the language 

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

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  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  
>>>  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 

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Fernando Frediani]

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  
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  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 

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:11, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:01 AM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
>  wrote:
>> I don’t see working for an address broker as an inherent COI for an AC member
> 
> Respectfully, this means you misunderstand the nature of Conflict of
> Interest. A conflict of interest is not inherently disqualifying. An
> impacted individual can, in fact, serve with distinction. But the
> conflict of interest must be managed. And for that to happen, it must
> first be -acknowledged- and understood.
> 
> Suppose, for example, I were to be elected to the board. I am a legacy
> resource holder, personally, and I have outspoken and presumptively
> self-serving views about how ARIN should interact with legacy
> registrants like myself. That's a conflict of interest. Were I a board
> member, it would be appropriate for me to recuse myself from votes to
> materially change ARIN's interaction with legacy registrants.

Sure, but what does an address broker who is transferring addresses
in accordance with ARIN policies and acting as a legitimate facilitator
do that is an inherent COI?

Yes, there are possible policies that could come up that could materially
benefit such an organization. There are also policies that come up that
could materially benefit cloud providers, large ISPs, small ISPs, or just
about any other subgroup of ARIN members you’d like to identify.

I don’t see brokers as being inherently different from any other group of
ARIN constituents.

Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:42, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:18 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> I know taking pot shots at the PDP and the AC is one of your favorite
>> hobbies, but I think you’re a bit off base on this one.
> 
> Stick your fingers in your ears if you like. I've watched PPML
> participation die the death of a thousand cuts and it's no mystery to
> me what inflicted the wounds.

Well… Maybe… I’ve watched policies become less controversial and more trivial 
over time.
The reality is that most of what the AC is working on today doesn’t really 
represent any
significant or major shifts in address policy. The policy regime has become 
rather stable
and most people are no longer upset about $pet_need not being met any more.

When PPML was at its most active, the community was also at its most divided and
there was significant discontent and rancor. That seems to be less today and I 
think
that most of the change is more people moving from passionate to “meh” towards
the current policy situation.

Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[jordi.palet--- via ARIN-PPML]

This hast not been my experience.

In several of my proposals to the ARIN PDP, I was tied to follow the shepherds 
inputs, and I’m convinced that those proposals failed because that. 

And I recall one specific case, that the AC edits resulted in a major problem, 
requiring a new policy proposal to amend it back.

That’s why I don’t really see the ARIN PDP as a “real” PDP compared to the 
other regions.


> In my experience, the AC works very hard to remain true to the author’s
> original intent and involve author(s) in the editorial process of a policy.
> The AC is also extremely receptive to whatever community input is
> available on a policy in most cases.
> 


**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the 
individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, 
copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if 
partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be 
considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly 
prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the 
original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:49, Fernando Frediani  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  
>>  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).
> 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 

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Scott Leibrand]

There is a kernel of truth behind Bill’s provocative framing. Much PPML 
discussion historically started as wordsmithing, which spawned real debate in 
many cases. Now, that all happens in private, and we only get discussion on 
more contentious topics. That often means the discussion we do get is mostly 
religious, from the Usual Suspects. So in a very real sense, ARIN and the AC 
have severed one good pipeline for engaging and evaluating new AC members. 

But we also don’t have much important policy work remaining. So there isn’t 
much reason for lots of folks to remain highly engaged on PPML like they did 
when we were designing IPv6 and IPv4 transfer policy and then tweaking it to 
reflect real-world usage. Now most of the activity on this list is cleanup and 
almost-editorial changes. 

Scott

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:43 AM, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:18 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> I know taking pot shots at the PDP and the AC is one of your favorite
>> hobbies, but I think you’re a bit off base on this one.
> 
> Stick your fingers in your ears if you like. I've watched PPML
> participation die the death of a thousand cuts and it's no mystery to
> me what inflicted the wounds.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> ___
> 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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:18 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:
> I know taking pot shots at the PDP and the AC is one of your favorite
> hobbies, but I think you’re a bit off base on this one.

Stick your fingers in your ears if you like. I've watched PPML
participation die the death of a thousand cuts and it's no mystery to
me what inflicted the wounds.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:47, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:28 AM Andrew Dul  wrote:
>> On 10/26/2023 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding
>>> policy proposals to developing policy proposals.
>> 
>> I realize that might be a distinction with out a difference, but I
>> wanted to point it out.
> 
> Shepherds guide folks through process. They don't edit proposals.
> Today's AC does much more of the latter than the former.
> 
> 
>> From a policy development perspective the AC's role has not changed
>> significantly in more than a decade.
> 
> I can still be sore about changes made a decade ago.
> 
> 
>> Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal?
> 
> I don't think that's the problem. The AC members are some of the best
> informed folks around. It would be a waste to be unable to leverage
> their ideas. The problem is the next step where they get together and
> edit them privately. This is inherently exclusionary of everybody else
> and IMO is uncorrectable as long as the AC has the unilateral power to
> edit an author's proposal.

In my experience, the AC works very hard to remain true to the author’s
original intent and involve author(s) in the editorial process of a policy.
The AC is also extremely receptive to whatever community input is
available on a policy in most cases.

The only recent counterexample I can point to is efforts to wordsmith
a proposal that sought to redefine assignment and (slightly) expand the
definition of allocation. You and I both wanted to choose a new term,
Mr. Curran was very clearly opposed to doing so. The AC obviously
chose to weigh Mr. Curran’s guidance more heavily than ours.

At the end of the day, that’s not one of the hills I’m willing to die on.

I don’t take that as an indication that the AC is conspiring with Mr. Curran
behind my back. That debate was quite open and public.

I have seen the AC depart from the author(s)’ intent in the following
circumstances:

+   Significant community pressure to go in a different direction
+   The author becomes unresponsive or unwilling to accommodate
community feedback

Otherwise, I’ve seen the AC work very hard to remain true to the author(s)’
original intent, even to the point of recognizing that editing a proposal would
be disingenuous and authoring a new proposal as an alternative rather than
override an existing proposal.

> What should be disallowed to AC members is:
> 
> 1. Editing proposals, except by the individual who authored it (which
> if an AC member should be only that individual).

I think this would be significantly more dysfunctional than the current
process, TBH. The most likely result would be the AC abandoning more
proposals and spinning up competing proposals as a workaround.

> 2. Private debate about proposals between AC members. Restrict the AC
> meetings to voting on proposals without debate or advocacy. Require
> the discussion and debate to happen on PPML.

ROFLMAO… This would not be an improvement of the process. This would
be chaos. You could sooner ban hallway discussions of proposals at the meetings.


Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Adam Thompson]

We agree on that much, yes.  Thanks for clarifying.
-Adam


> -Original Message-
> From: William Herrin 
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 11:15 AM
> To: Adam Thompson 
> Cc: Mike Burns ; arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM Adam Thompson 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:44, William Herrin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:42 AM John Curran  wrote:
>>> On Oct 26, 2023, at 12:20 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
>>> It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding
>>> policy proposals to developing policy proposals.
>> 
>> There is no material change in the role of the ARIN AC in this regard –
>> although I do agree that the role of the ARIN AC in shepherding policies
>> has been made clearer with subsequent updates to the ARIN Policy
>> Development Process (PDP).
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> That's just not accurate. I forget the name of the process that
> preceded the PDP, but the introduction of the PDP fundamentally and
> IMO destructively changed the AC's role.

I think you’re referring to the Internet Resources Policy Evaluation Process 
(IRPEP).

However, I think you are misremembering things rather substantially… Under the 
IRPEP,
the AC had a relatively free hand to reject proposals in their infancy and 
there was
considerably less protection available to the proposal author or the community.

This carried over into the first version of the PDP, and the AC’s escalating 
use of
that ability was significantly reigned in in the next version of the PDP as a 
result.

Under the current PDP (and at least 2 previous versions), the AC can only reject
a proposal prior to making it a draft policy if it is out of scope of the PDP 
or lacks
a clear problem statement. Even in those cases, the AC is required to make a 
good
faith effort to wrork with the author(s) to resolve those defects.

Once a policy is a draft policy, it’s published and open for community 
discussion.
The AC cannot abandon it without a substantial majority vote (IIRC it takes at
least 8 members of the AC voting in favor of abandonment, regardless of the
number of AC members present in the meeting). The AC must further provide
a reason for such abandonment to the community.

As John stated, if the community has any level of disagreement with the AC’s
actions in such a case, the petition process is quite easy to exercise.

To the best of my knowledge, only a handful of abandoned proposals or
draft policies have ever been successfully petitioned and of those, I don’t
recall a single example which went on to become policy.

I know taking pot shots at the PDP and the AC is one of your favorite
hobbies, but I think you’re a bit off base on this one.

Owen


___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:01 AM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
 wrote:
> I don’t see working for an address broker as an inherent COI for an AC member

Respectfully, this means you misunderstand the nature of Conflict of
Interest. A conflict of interest is not inherently disqualifying. An
impacted individual can, in fact, serve with distinction. But the
conflict of interest must be managed. And for that to happen, it must
first be -acknowledged- and understood.

Suppose, for example, I were to be elected to the board. I am a legacy
resource holder, personally, and I have outspoken and presumptively
self-serving views about how ARIN should interact with legacy
registrants like myself. That's a conflict of interest. Were I a board
member, it would be appropriate for me to recuse myself from votes to
materially change ARIN's interaction with legacy registrants.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 08:42, Adam Thompson  wrote:
> 
> I can't believe I'm taking this position now, but I guess it's 2023 so here 
> we are...
> 
> 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.  Every AC member is an ARIN member that 
> obtains resources from ARIN, and thus could be tempted to act solely in their 
> own interests.

ARIN membership and/or possession of resources are not inherent requirements to 
become an AC member. I don’t know if we’ve had AC members that didn’t have 
resources, we’ve certainly had AC members that were not ARIN members.

Owen

___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:49 AM Fernando Frediani  wrote:
> 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.

Hi Fernando,

Their position is that the price of IPv4 addresses has become large
enough to assure that their buyers put them to productive use. An
additional paperwork tiger is thus frustrating and wasteful.

It's not the position that ARIN has adopted and there are some
problems with the idea, but it's not knee-jerk unreasonable.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

Having served for several years on the AC along side someone who worked for one 
of the larger address brokers throughout most of that time,
I will say that IMHO, she served with honor and distinction and was an 
excellent addition to the AC.

I don’t see working for an address broker as an inherent COI for an AC member, 
so long as their role is not somehow hidden from the community
in the election process.

YMMV

Owen


> On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:11, Dustin Moses  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> I agree with you that having a candidate disclose a potential COI is a major 
> point, the reality is in a multi-stakeholder community led organization such 
> as ARIN, wouldn't most qualified candidates have a conflict of interest when 
> it comes to policy? I think there is a fair handed approach to the multiple 
> mindset approach that is the AC as well as policy that is actively driven by 
> community participation. If you see policy that seems skewed, then actively 
> deny it in the PPML and at the general meeting. This is a benefit of the open 
> Policy Development Process that ARIN has adopted recently. Unless there is 
> clear "industry takeover" of multiple candidates in the same space, I don't 
> really see the conflict of interest but rather a separate state of opinion. 
> 
> I think it is great you are asking for candidates to participate in a public 
> forum of opinion and get to hear the words directly from the candidates 
> themselves. I am sure other people have had similar concerns and the PPML is 
> a great way to raise them.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
>  <https://intermaxnetworks.com/> 
> Dustin Moses​
> Network Engineer III
> o: 208-762-8065 
>   
> d: (208) 758‑0489
> w: intermaxnetworks.com <http://intermaxnetworks.com/>
> a: 
> 7400 N Mineral Drive Suite 300
> , 
> Coeur d'Alene
> , 
> ID
>  
> 83815
>  <https://twitter.com/imaxnetworks>  
>  <https://www.facebook.com/ImaxNetworks/>
>  
> <https://linkedin.com/company/intermaxnetworks>-Original Message-
> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of 
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 8:43 AM
> To: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 220, Issue 9
> 
> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
> arin-ppml@arin.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
> Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
> 1. Re: AC candidates (Mike Burns)
> 2. Re: AC candidates (Chris Woodfield)
> 3. Re: AC candidates (Andrew Dul)
> 4. Re: AC candidates (Adam Thompson)
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:12:20 -0400
> From: Mike Burns 
> To: 
> Cc: , 
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
> Message-ID:
> <18b6c8b26f1.de7c91b8305428.6034375938475563...@iptrading.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Fair enough, most people interested in this are likely to have some conflicts 
> and it's important to consider those.
> 
> If we unilaterally excluded all candidates with conflicts though, candidate 
> pickings would be even slimmer.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
>  On Thu,26 Oct 2023 17:22:13 -0400 b...@herrin.us wrote On Thu, Oct 
> 26, 2023 at 6:58?AM Mike Burns  wrote:
> > And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to IP 
> > brokers would be a point in their favor considering they are the 
> > people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an ARIN 
> position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the conflict of 
> interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived plan for addressing 
> it.
> 
> Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a job I 
> liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully managed his 
> conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I couldn't properly 
> oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to conflicts of interest.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://lists.arin.net/pi

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Fernando Frediani]

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 ?


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.


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.


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.


Therefore yes, any person affiliated to IP broker should be seen as a 
high conflict of interest.


Fernando

On 26/10/2023 13:15, William Herrin wrote:

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM Adam Thompson  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).
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:28 AM Andrew Dul  wrote:
> On 10/26/2023 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> > It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding
> > policy proposals to developing policy proposals.
>
> I realize that might be a distinction with out a difference, but I
> wanted to point it out.

Shepherds guide folks through process. They don't edit proposals.
Today's AC does much more of the latter than the former.


>  From a policy development perspective the AC's role has not changed
> significantly in more than a decade.

I can still be sore about changes made a decade ago.


> Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal?

I don't think that's the problem. The AC members are some of the best
informed folks around. It would be a waste to be unable to leverage
their ideas. The problem is the next step where they get together and
edit them privately. This is inherently exclusionary of everybody else
and IMO is uncorrectable as long as the AC has the unilateral power to
edit an author's proposal.

What should be disallowed to AC members is:

1. Editing proposals, except by the individual who authored it (which
if an AC member should be only that individual).

2. Private debate about proposals between AC members. Restrict the AC
meetings to voting on proposals without debate or advocacy. Require
the discussion and debate to happen on PPML.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 9:42 AM John Curran  wrote:
> > On Oct 26, 2023, at 12:20 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
> > It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding
> > policy proposals to developing policy proposals.
>
> There is no material change in the role of the ARIN AC in this regard –
> although I do agree that the role of the ARIN AC in shepherding policies
> has been made clearer with subsequent updates to the ARIN Policy
> Development Process (PDP).

Hi John,

That's just not accurate. I forget the name of the process that
preceded the PDP, but the introduction of the PDP fundamentally and
IMO destructively changed the AC's role.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[John Curran]

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 12:20 PM, William Herrin  wrote:
> ...
> It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding
> policy proposals to developing policy proposals.

There is no material change in the role of the ARIN AC in this regard – 
although I do agree that the role of the ARIN AC in shepherding policies
has been made clearer with subsequent updates to the ARIN Policy
Development Process (PDP).

> IMO, one of the worst decisions the board has made. Why should any
> member of the general public make the effort to craft a proposal when
> it's going to be committeed to death before it can come to a consensus
> call?

It is true that the ARIN AC is responsible for shepherding all draft policies 
in the 
policy development process, and this includes holding the “editor’s pen” when it
comes to making changes to draft policies.  This has always been the case, but
updates to the PDP have made this clearer over the years. 

Any member of the community can submit a policy proposal, and there are petition
options at each stage of the process if one wishes to overturn the actions of 
the 
member-elected ARIN AC in its handling of policy proposals or draft policies 

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 (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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Andrew Dul]

On 10/26/2023 9:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:27 AM Andrew Dul  wrote:

While the PPML is open to any participant we see very few active
collaborators on this list.  My perception as someone who has been on
this list for a long time is that the number of active collaborators has
decreased over time.

Hi Andrew,

It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding
policy proposals to developing policy proposals.


From a policy development perspective the AC's role has not changed 
significantly in more than a decade.  The AC's official role is still 
being policy shepherds.


When an AC member submits a policy proposal they do it as a member of 
the community not in their capacity as AC members.


I realize that might be a distinction with out a difference, but I 
wanted to point it out.


Should we disallow an AC member from submitting a policy proposal?

Andrew




IMO, one of the worst decisions the board has made. Why should any
member of the general public make the effort to craft a proposal when
it's going to be committeed to death before it can come to a consensus
call?

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).
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:27 AM Andrew Dul  wrote:
> While the PPML is open to any participant we see very few active
> collaborators on this list.  My perception as someone who has been on
> this list for a long time is that the number of active collaborators has
> decreased over time.

Hi Andrew,

It plummeted after the Board changed the AC's role from shepherding
policy proposals to developing policy proposals.

IMO, one of the worst decisions the board has made. Why should any
member of the general public make the effort to craft a proposal when
it's going to be committeed to death before it can come to a consensus
call?

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 8:42 AM Adam Thompson  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



-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Dustin Moses]

Hi Bill,

I agree with you that having a candidate disclose a potential COI is a major 
point, the reality is in a multi-stakeholder community led organization such as 
ARIN, wouldn't most qualified candidates have a conflict of interest when it 
comes to policy? I think there is a fair handed approach to the multiple 
mindset approach that is the AC as well as policy that is actively driven by 
community participation. If you see policy that seems skewed, then actively 
deny it in the PPML and at the general meeting. This is a benefit of the open 
Policy Development Process that ARIN has adopted recently. Unless there is 
clear "industry takeover" of multiple candidates in the same space, I don't 
really see the conflict of interest but rather a separate state of opinion.

I think it is great you are asking for candidates to participate in a public 
forum of opinion and get to hear the words directly from the candidates 
themselves. I am sure other people have had similar concerns and the PPML is a 
great way to raise them.

Thanks



Dustin Moses
Network Engineer III
o: 208-762-8065  d: (208) 758-0489
w: intermaxnetworks.com
a: 7400 N Mineral Drive Suite 300, Coeur d'Alene, ID
83815
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of 
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 8:43 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 220, Issue 9

Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml@arin.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-requ...@arin.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-ow...@arin.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: 
Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: AC candidates (Mike Burns)
   2. Re: AC candidates (Chris Woodfield)
   3. Re: AC candidates (Andrew Dul)
   4. Re: AC candidates (Adam Thompson)


--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 11:12:20 -0400
From: Mike Burns 
To: 
Cc: , 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
Message-ID:
<18b6c8b26f1.de7c91b8305428.6034375938475563...@iptrading.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Bill,

Fair enough, most people interested in this are likely to have some conflicts 
and it's important to consider those.

If we unilaterally excluded all candidates with conflicts though, candidate 
pickings would be even slimmer.

Regards,
Mike

  On Thu,26 Oct 2023 17:22:13 -0400  b...@herrin.us  wrote On Thu, Oct 
26, 2023 at 6:58?AM Mike Burns  wrote:
> And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to IP
> brokers would be a point in their favor considering they are the
> people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.

Hi Mike,

Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an ARIN 
position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the conflict of 
interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived plan for addressing it.

Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a job I 
liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully managed his 
conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I couldn't properly 
oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to conflicts of interest.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


--
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20231026/534972df/attachment-0001.htm>

--

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2023 08:17:55 -0700
From: Chris Woodfield 
To: "arin-p...@lists.arin.net" 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
Message-ID: <049e6d23-8455-4411-a7ef-82e58cc3a...@semihuman.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The concern, as I see it, is not whether or not a candidate has potential 
conflicts of interest - you are correct that it would be extremely difficult to 
find candidates that do not. The question for me is, can a given candidate be 
trusted to properly separate their personal business interests from the 
interests of the community, and recuse themselves a given deliberation when 
there?s no other way to remove the appearance of such a conflict of interest?

-C

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 08:12, Mike Burns  wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Fair enough, most people interested in this are likely to have some conflicts 
> and it's important to consider those.
>
> If we unilaterally excluded all candidates with conflicts though, candidate 
> pickings would be even slimmer.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
>
>  On Thu,26 Oct 2023 17:22:13 -0400 b...@herrin.us wrote 
>
&

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Adam Thompson]

I can't believe I'm taking this position now, but I guess it's 2023 so here we 
are...

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.  Every AC member is an ARIN member that 
obtains resources from ARIN, and thus could be tempted to act solely in their 
own interests.
IP brokers have similar conflicts of interest quantitatively, not necessarily 
any larger than an LRSA signatory with, say, a /12's worth of resources or more 
- they just retire and acquire several [new] conflicts of interest every day, 
as opposed to having the exact same conflict of interest day after day.  Yes, 
of course there's a qualitative difference, but I don't think a comprehensive 
ontology for conflicts of interest exists yet, never mind a hierarchy.

While I really wish IP brokers didn't [need to] exist as an industry, they do, 
and they appear to be the primary means of IP address distribution today, for 
better or for worse - and therefore keeping them out in the cold doesn't serve 
the interests of ARIN or the ARIN membership or the larger internet community.  
I'd rather see them participating in ARIN governance instead of being what 
threatens to be an RIR-bypass mechanism.  "If you can't beat them, join them" 
works in both directions.

Do they have to carefully manage their COIs?  Yes, in exactly the was same 
every other person on the AC, the board, committees, etc. must.  I can't see 
any reason they would be intrinsically less able to do so, and I feel that 
insinuation otherwise starts edging towards ad-hominem attacks.

As to why they need to exist... well, we all collectively did that to ourselves 
with the!@#$%^&* pathologically painful transition path to IPv6.  (Speaking as 
someone running a fully v6-enabled ISP/MSP... I have exactly one client who 
cares.  Sigh.)

Speaking my own opinions, not necessarily my employer's,
-Adam

> -Original Message-
> From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 9:22 AM
> To: Mike Burns 
> Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Mike Burns  wrote:
> > And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to
> > IP brokers would be a point in their favor considering they
> > are the people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an
> ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the
> conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived
> plan for addressing it.
> 
> Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a
> job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully
> managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I
> couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to
> conflicts of interest.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> ___
> 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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Andrew Dul]

On 10/26/2023 12:42 AM, William Herrin wrote:

Howdy,

As I think about how to vote for the AC candidates, I figured I'd
check the list archives to see how each one went about arguing for and
against proposals over the years. Seems like a reasonable way to
evaluate a candidate judged "well qualified," right?

Imagine my surprise. Of the 14 candidates, only 5  have posted here as
a member of the general public. Ever. Even a couple of the current AC
members have only posted here in their official capacity on the AC.

I don't know what to say.I just don't know what to say.


Bill,

I have also used this metric in the past when considering AC 
candidates.  We will have a large turnover in AC seats this year so 
perhaps this metric is a bit skewed this year?   Or maybe it is a trend?


I think one question to ask would be is this an artifact of the AC 
candidates and current AC members and PPML or PPML as a whole? I 
certainly would like to see more collaboration on the PPML by AC members 
but we just don't see that.  There has been discussion on and off about 
how the AC contributes to the public discussion with an awareness of 
their position could create a bias in the discussion.  This has been 
specifically discussed regarding comments at the microphone during the 
public policy meeting, but the sentiment I think also carries over a 
little bit onto the list.


While the PPML is open to any participant we see very few active 
collaborators on this list.  My perception as someone who has been on 
this list for a long time is that the number of active collaborators has 
decreased over time.  One could certainly "do the research" to confirm 
or deny that perception.  There could be many reasons for that, but are 
those reasons also applicable to AC members and candidates?



Hope this helps,

Andrew  (AC member but not speaking for the AC)


___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Chris Woodfield]

The concern, as I see it, is not whether or not a candidate has potential 
conflicts of interest - you are correct that it would be extremely difficult to 
find candidates that do not. The question for me is, can a given candidate be 
trusted to properly separate their personal business interests from the 
interests of the community, and recuse themselves a given deliberation when 
there’s no other way to remove the appearance of such a conflict of interest?

-C

> On Oct 26, 2023, at 08:12, Mike Burns  wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Fair enough, most people interested in this are likely to have some conflicts 
> and it's important to consider those.
> 
> If we unilaterally excluded all candidates with conflicts though, candidate 
> pickings would be even slimmer.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
>  On Thu,26 Oct 2023 17:22:13 -0400 b...@herrin.us wrote 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Mike Burns  > wrote: 
> > And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to 
> > IP brokers would be a point in their favor considering they 
> > are the people distributing IPv4 addresses these days. 
> 
> Hi Mike, 
> 
> Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an 
> ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the 
> conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived 
> plan for addressing it. 
> 
> Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a 
> job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully 
> managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I 
> couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to 
> conflicts of interest. 
> 
> Regards, 
> Bill Herrin 
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin 
> b...@herrin.us  
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> 
> ___
> 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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Mike Burns]

Hi Bill,

Fair enough, most people interested in this are likely to have some conflicts 
and it's important to consider those.

If we unilaterally excluded all candidates with conflicts though, candidate 
pickings would be even slimmer.

Regards,
Mike

  On Thu,26 Oct 2023 17:22:13 -0400  b...@herrin.us  wrote On Thu, Oct 
26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Mike Burns  wrote:
> And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to
> IP brokers would be a point in their favor considering they
> are the people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.

Hi Mike,

Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an
ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the
conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived
plan for addressing it.

Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a
job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully
managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I
couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to
conflicts of interest.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Olerato Manyaapelo]

How many times must I ask you guys to remove me from your mailing lists? I
am not interested in receiving these emails.
C.O Manyaapelo


On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 at 16:22, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Mike Burns  wrote:
> > And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to
> > IP brokers would be a point in their favor considering they
> > are the people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an
> ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the
> conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived
> plan for addressing it.
>
> Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a
> job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully
> managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I
> couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to
> conflicts of interest.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> ___
> 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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 6:58 AM Mike Burns  wrote:
> And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to
> IP brokers would be a point in their favor considering they
> are the people distributing IPv4 addresses these days.

Hi Mike,

Before considering someone affiliated with an address broker for an
ARIN position, I'd want them to demonstrate that they recognize the
conflict of interest that's likely to pose and have a well conceived
plan for addressing it.

Conflict of interest corrupts even the best intentioned. I once quit a
job I liked because despite his good intentions my boss unsuccessfully
managed his conflict of interest. It placed me in a position where I
couldn't properly oversee the prime vendor. So I'm sensitive to
conflicts of interest.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Mike Burns]

Hi Bill,

 

I feel your pain and I think it’s sad that there is not more participation from 
these candidates.

And I agree with Fernando that affiliations or connections to IP brokers would 
be a point in their favor considering they are the people distributing IPv4 
addresses these days.

Makes sense to have their guidance. 

 

Regards,
Mike

 

 

 

 

From: ARIN-PPML  On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2023 8:28 AM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

 

Hi Bill

Also check other details that may be concerning for example if any of them have 
affiliations or connections to any IP brokers or what kind of proposals that 
may put in jeopardy ARIN registered resources.
Fernando

On 26/10/2023 04:42, William Herrin wrote:

Howdy,
 
As I think about how to vote for the AC candidates, I figured I'd
check the list archives to see how each one went about arguing for and
against proposals over the years. Seems like a reasonable way to
evaluate a candidate judged "well qualified," right?
 
Imagine my surprise. Of the 14 candidates, only 5  have posted here as
a member of the general public. Ever. Even a couple of the current AC
members have only posted here in their official capacity on the AC.
 
I don't know what to say.I just don't know what to say.
 
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).
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.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Fernando Frediani]

Hi Bill

Also check other details that may be concerning for example if any of 
them have affiliations or connections to any IP brokers or what kind of 
proposals that may put in jeopardy ARIN registered resources.

Fernando

On 26/10/2023 04:42, William Herrin wrote:

Howdy,

As I think about how to vote for the AC candidates, I figured I'd
check the list archives to see how each one went about arguing for and
against proposals over the years. Seems like a reasonable way to
evaluate a candidate judged "well qualified," right?

Imagine my surprise. Of the 14 candidates, only 5  have posted here as
a member of the general public. Ever. Even a couple of the current AC
members have only posted here in their official capacity on the AC.

I don't know what to say.I just don't know what to say.

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).
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] AC candidates

[William Herrin]

Howdy,

As I think about how to vote for the AC candidates, I figured I'd
check the list archives to see how each one went about arguing for and
against proposals over the years. Seems like a reasonable way to
evaluate a candidate judged "well qualified," right?

Imagine my surprise. Of the 14 candidates, only 5  have posted here as
a member of the general public. Ever. Even a couple of the current AC
members have only posted here in their official capacity on the AC.

I don't know what to say.I just don't know what to say.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
___
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.