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:

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] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2023 - ARIN-2023-7

[Brian Jones]

I would also support a separate action with your suggested definition for
Org-ID as you outline below.

Brian
bjo...@vt.edu
Mobile client - excuse the typos


On Thu, Oct 26, 2023, 14:35 Owen DeLong  wrote:

> I support this course of action, but I still believe there is value in
> adding a definition (as a separate proposal) of ORG-ID.
>
> Suggest:
> An ORG-ID is a unique handle pointing to an Organization record in the
> ARIN database. All resources in the ARIN database are tied to ORG-IDs.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Oct 26, 2023, at 11:08, Brian Jones  wrote:
>
>
>
> As a member of the NRPM working group and one of the authors that worked
> on this particular proposal, I would be in support of dropping the OrgID
> definition all together and then submitting changes to sections 4.5 and
> 6.11 Multiple Discrete Networks as editorial changes to bring them into
> compliance with the style guide preferences and match the readability of
> the remainder of the NRPM. This seems to align with feedback received at
> ARIN 52 concerning this policy. Trying to define OrgID or organization in
> the NRPM does not make a lot of sense in light of information from
> participants in ARIN 52 who pointed out there can be essentially one
> organization with multiple OrgID’s e.g. divisions/subdivisions.
>
> Fwiw
>
> Brian Jones
> Virginia Tech
> ARIN Advisory Council
> NRPM Working Group
> NomCom
>
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2023, at 11:36 AM, ARIN  wrote:
>
> ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete
> Networks and the addition of new Section 2.18 Organizational Identifier
> (Org ID)
>
>
> ___
> 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]

> 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] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2023 - ARIN-2023-7

[Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML]

I support this course of action, but I still believe there is value in adding a 
definition (as a separate proposal) of ORG-ID.

Suggest:
An ORG-ID is a unique handle pointing to an Organization record in the ARIN 
database. All resources in the ARIN database are tied to ORG-IDs.

Owen


> On Oct 26, 2023, at 11:08, Brian Jones  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> As a member of the NRPM working group and one of the authors that worked on 
> this particular proposal, I would be in support of dropping the OrgID 
> definition all together and then submitting changes to sections 4.5 and 6.11 
> Multiple Discrete Networks as editorial changes to bring them into compliance 
> with the style guide preferences and match the readability of the remainder 
> of the NRPM. This seems to align with feedback received at ARIN 52 concerning 
> this policy. Trying to define OrgID or organization in the NRPM does not make 
> a lot of sense in light of information from participants in ARIN 52 who 
> pointed out there can be essentially one organization with multiple OrgID’s 
> e.g. divisions/subdivisions. 
> 
> Fwiw
> 
> Brian Jones
> Virginia Tech
> ARIN Advisory Council
> NRPM Working Group
> NomCom
> 
> 
> 
>> On Oct 25, 2023, at 11:36 AM, ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete 
>> Networks and the addition of new Section 2.18 Organizational Identifier (Org 
>> ID)
> 
> ___
> 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

[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] Advisory Council Meeting Results - October 2023 - ARIN-2023-7

[Brian Jones]

As a member of the NRPM working group and one of the authors that worked on 
this particular proposal, I would be in support of dropping the OrgID 
definition all together and then submitting changes to sections 4.5 and 6.11 
Multiple Discrete Networks as editorial changes to bring them into compliance 
with the style guide preferences and match the readability of the remainder of 
the NRPM. This seems to align with feedback received at ARIN 52 concerning this 
policy. Trying to define OrgID or organization in the NRPM does not make a lot 
of sense in light of information from participants in ARIN 52 who pointed out 
there can be essentially one organization with multiple OrgID’s e.g. 
divisions/subdivisions.

Fwiw

Brian Jones
Virginia Tech
ARIN Advisory Council
NRPM Working Group
NomCom



> On Oct 25, 2023, at 11:36 AM, ARIN  wrote:
> 
> ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete 
> Networks and the addition of new Section 2.18 Organizational Identifier (Org 
> ID)



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
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.