Not only that. I really think they have not invested enough time to read the
proposal, check with the authors and then take a decision. We have got some
email exchange, but clearly not sufficient. I also must state that the staff
has been very helpful and diligent to clarify and support the petition process.
Just the point is, should have never been needed, it exposes how bad (in my
opinion) is the ARIN AC model.
Some details:
This is absolutely fake:
"AP stated that at the LACNIC meeting has discussed it and they dismissed it as
out of scope."
LACNIC will have the first meeting where this topic will be discussed in two
weeks from now. How come an AC member can lie such way?
If I'm an AC member, or any other similar team, I will make sure to inform
myself before stating something like that. In this case there is no excuse, you
just need to visit a web page for the LACNIC policy proposals, similar in every
RIR.
Then I continue reading this: "AP stated that she believed that the author was
using ARIN to solve their problem."
How come somebody that doesn't know me, can state that?
In my country, at least, this is an illegal (criminal) act (slander, ad
hominem, etc.), unless you can prove that what you're suggesting is *actually
true*.
I don't want to make a problem with that or even consider to go to courts with
the case, but I really think that before saying that from someone, you must
talk to him before.
I'm a very open and transparent guy, and I *never ever* did a policy proposal
for *any* personal or even business motivation. I did that because if I
discover an issue, and I believe I can contribute to resolve it and it will be
good for the community, I just go for it. Even in several occasions my own
proposal has been ***against*** my personal point of view and when I presented
those policies I *clearly* stated that (for example when I was presenting
policy proposals in all the 5 RIRs for IPv6 PI and I can find the videos if
somebody doubt what I'm saying).
And by the way, I'm not new on this. A month ago, during the IETF meeting in
Prague, somebody asked me how many proposals I've submitted to all the RIRs
(since my first one around 2003 or so). I didn't know, no idea at all, so I
decided to count them, and then I discovered that I authored over 75 (a few of
them with other co-authors). And this isn't including an average of 3-4
versions of each one, or many other documents in IETF (and the "n" number of
versions of each one as well).
I do this at the cost of my own personal pocket for traveling to the RIR
meetings, I contribute as much as I can with tutorials, workshops,
presentations, all kind of documents, articles, sharing my *own* time. So,
reading that is really exasperating and frustrating.
And just to be clear, let me state that I don't have anything against anyone in
the AC or ARIN. In fact, I've been always convinced that the AC model for the
PDP in ARIN is a bad one, and this is demonstrating that. Authors and comminity
lose the control on a policy proposal at some point (and in this case is even
rejected before starting).
Speaking in general, even if a proposal don't reach consensus, I'm sure any
open discussion is always very productive and can bring new ideas, or new
approaches to the problem.
In the Internet RIRs system, I don't think we need a kind of "representative
democracy". The community is able to use, in any of the 5 RIRs, a very simple
process to work on achieving (or not) consensus in policy proposals: a mailing
list.
Regards,
Jordi
El 26/4/19 22:35, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Mauch" <nanog-boun...@nanog.org en
nombre de ja...@puck.nether.net> escribió:
There are factual errors in the ARIN meeting minutes. It really is a
disservice that people on the AC don’t have facts about ARIN and the function
of their routing registry (for example).
It would be good if the ARIN AC had people that were more aware of the
functions ARIN provides.
If you control vote of resources by ARIN I encourage you to use this as
part of your process.
Sent from my iCar
> On Apr 26, 2019, at 12:47 PM, Joe Provo <nanog-p...@rsuc.gweep.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:41:18AM -0500, Matt Harris wrote:
>> [snip]
>> Can you (or someone else on the list, perhaps even someone who was
involved
>> in voting this down) provide some more details as to why it was rejected?
>> What were the arguments in favor of rejecting the proposal? This seems
>> like an interesting idea to me, and one that I can't immediately come up
>> with any arguments against from my own perspective. There's probably
some
>> room for discussing and tuning specifics, but ultimately the concept
seems
>> reasonable to me. What am I missing here?
>
> Speaking solely for myself, it would be reasonable to start
> any discussion based upon the on-record rationales for its
> rejection. As such I would direct interested parties to the
> Draft Advisory Council Meeting minutes from April 10
> https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2019_0410/
>
> and most specifically on that page
> "16. ARIN-Prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation"
>
> Cheers,
>
> Joe
>
> --
> Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
> Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
**********************************************
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.
