Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

Former AC member here. I can tell you that there was at least one proposal (eventually got adopted) on which my co-shephard and I had a call with the author to confirm their intent, did some re-writing to clarify that intent, ran it back past the author and had some back and forth to ensure the cri

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

The shepherds allow the policy proposals to go through the process unchanged as long as it meets the criteria. So in a clean proposal case, zero. However, it is sometimes necessary to suggest edits to the proposal to the policy author to ensure it meets the criteria of a Draft. At that point the s

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 11:48 AM Kat Hunter wrote: [ clip ] > The pen is in the author's hands until the point it is moved to Draft. [ > ] I can tell you the current AC works very hard with authors to get > the policy into a state where the community can review it and give it the > best

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

rin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 12:41 PM Cj Aronson wrote: > My question for you is what's the real issue you're trying to solve? Howdy! There are three things that concern me. 1. Policy-related activity from people other than the AC seems a

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

Bill, I want to address two of your points. To your first point: You are correct that a larger number of policies were derived from the AC working groups up until this year. The AC had both the NRPM working group and the Policy Experience Report working group through the end of 2023. Due to the co

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

Bill, On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 12:34 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 12:41 PM Cj Aronson wrote: > > My question for you is what's the real issue you're trying to solve? > > Howdy! > > There are three things that concern me. > > 1. Policy-related activity from people other than

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 12:41 PM Cj Aronson wrote: > My question for you is what's the real issue you're trying to solve? Howdy! There are three things that concern me. 1. Policy-related activity from people other than the AC seems a lot more sparse now than in the IRPEP days. I've felt it myse

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

it is a very basic and timeworn principal that ad hominem arguments are fallacious. Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Friday, August 09, 2024 4:23 PM To: arin-ppml@arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates Hello Amy

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 4:52 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 10:46 AM Cj Aronson wrote: > > I would like to add here (as someone who was on the AC through all the > > changes of the policy process) the original policy process was very > > difficult for the AC because we often

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> On Aug 10, 2024, at 11:02 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > Is that your final answer? It doesn't read to me like you completely > understood the question. I didn't ask how many proposals proceeded > without any modification, I asked how many proceeded without the AC > making the modification. A p

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 5:51 PM John Curran wrote: > On Aug 10, 2024, at 6:52 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> How many proposals would you say survive the process without the AC >> changing something about the text? > > I would expect very few, if any, to proceed without some change to the text Hi

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Aug 10, 2024, at 6:52 PM, William Herrin wrote: ... How many proposals would you say survive the process without the AC changing something about the text? Keeping what they understand to be the meaning of the proposal,of course, but changing the text? Is the number larger than zero? Bill - I

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 10:46 AM Cj Aronson wrote: > I would like to add here (as someone who was on the AC through all the > changes of the policy process) the original policy process was very > difficult for the AC because we often could not get the author to participate > in the process and so

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

Bill, I would like to add here (as someone who was on the AC through all the changes of the policy process) the original policy process was very difficult for the AC because we often could not get the author to participate in the process and so policies that the community wanted and needed would l

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> On Aug 9, 2024, at 7:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > Like the text said: that was only if the AC determined > there was insufficient public support for the proposal as written by > the author. Not quite. The question of whether two versions might move forward arises only after the communi

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 4:06 PM John Curran wrote: > On Aug 9, 2024, at 6:48 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> I think you mean 2009. The PDP was introduced in 2009 and modified in >> 2013. For the first 12 years of ARIN's existence, the AC could suggest >> improvements to proposal authors, but the aut

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Aug 9, 2024, at 6:48 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 3:24 PM John Curran wrote: On Aug 9, 2024, at 6:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: No. No no. That's what the AC did BEFORE the board created the PDP. Now they're charged with writing the policies. You are correct prior to 2004

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 3:24 PM John Curran wrote: > On Aug 9, 2024, at 6:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> No. No no. That's what the AC did BEFORE the board created the PDP. >> Now they're charged with writing the policies. > You are correct prior to 2004. Hi John, I think you mean 2009. The PD

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Aug 9, 2024, at 6:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 1:39 PM John Curran wrote: I will note that the member-elected ARIN AC works predominately to administer the policy development process, and to do so in a highly uniform and consistent manner. No. No no. That's what the A

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 1:39 PM John Curran wrote: > I will note that the member-elected ARIN AC works predominately to > administer the policy development process, and to do so in a highly > uniform and consistent manner. No. No no. That's what the AC did BEFORE the board created the PDP. Now the

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Aug 9, 2024, at 4:11 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote: The center of any proposal should always be on the author(s) and shepherds should only facilitate discussion both within the AC and with the community, but have very little input into modifying the text. Above all what should always prevai

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

Hello Amy Thanks for sharing you thought on the subject. That was indeed a great and detailed text to read. I understand most of what you mean and your way to see the scenario, but sincerely I believe your experience and ability to ethically recuse yourself on certain occasions is more an ex

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

Before I forget I was meant to comment about this topic a while ago. I have to agree with below commends about how weird AC works. For some that are used to be members, have been used with this structure and have the control to micro-manage things it may sound fine things the way they are, but

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

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:18 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller > wrote: > > We wanted to encourage discussion so we could > > determine support, but not dominate the conversation. > > Hi Heather, > > Does holding the substantive discussion in closed me

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

On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:15 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2023, at 00:16, William Herrin wrote: > > I have no qualms with the AC having a safe space to candidly discuss > > and debate the policy proposals. But don't blow smoke up my tail that > > they're not privately discussing and deba

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

> On Oct 29, 2023, at 00:16, William Herrin wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:36 PM Delong.com wrote: >> Overall, I think it provides a better result, but making a public record of >> absolutely everything would be cause more problems than it would solve >> IMHO. > > I have no qualms with

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

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:36 PM Delong.com wrote: > Overall, I think it provides a better result, but making a public record of > absolutely everything would be cause more problems than it would solve > IMHO. I have no qualms with the AC having a safe space to candidly discuss and debate the pol

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

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

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

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

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

> On Oct 28, 2023, at 08:08, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:52 PM Owen DeLong wrote: On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller >>> wrote: The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public.

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

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:52 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller > > wrote: > >> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public. > >> Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narro

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

On 28 Oct 2023 at 08:01:45, Douglas Camin wrote: > Next year holding an ASN only will be considered a valid path to being a > general voting member of ARIN, so this limitation will be removed. > However this discussion is about moving the candidate talk to a closed list for this year. For nex

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

<mailto:d...@dougcamin.com> -- Douglas J. Camin d...@dougcamin.com From: ARIN-PPML on behalf of Fearghas McKay Date: Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:59 PM To: Owen DeLong Cc: PPML Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates > On 27 Oct 2023, at 18:54, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > wrote

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

The phrase that always went around "back in the day" was : members of the community have the right to seek policy proposals in their own interests. Law enforcement in particular was encouraged in this way. And members (in the old sense) did. And it was perfectly normal for large resource holders (a

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

+1 Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 26, 2023, at 2:23 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > >  > >> On Oct 26, 2023, at 10:11, William Herrin wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 10:01 AM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML >>> wrote: >>> I don’t see working for an address broker as an inherent COI

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

t; It would certainly help evaluate re-election candidates. > > > > Regards, > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: ARIN-PPML > <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>> On Behalf Of William

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

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller > wrote: >> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public. >> Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow >> aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality an

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

thologically 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- >> F

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 18:06, William Herrin wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:05 PM John Curran wrote: >> We will hold an appropriate consultation in the future to discuss this issue >> and so that the merits of various >> approaches can be considered. > > Am I crazy, or did ARIN just hol

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

ML On Behalf Of William Herrin > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM > To: Heather Schiller > Cc: arin-ppml > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit) > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller > wrote: >> We wanted to encourage discussion

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

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

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

The substantive discussion about the policy *is* held in public. Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality and whether there is community support. For the former 2, it is often a summary of the points the community has brought up.

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

ginal Message- > From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of William Herrin > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM > To: Heather Schiller > Cc: arin-ppml > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit) > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller < > heather.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 2:05 PM John Curran wrote: > We will hold an appropriate consultation in the future to discuss this issue > and so that the merits of various > approaches can be considered. Am I crazy, or did ARIN just hold a consultation about splitting the PPML list last year and get a

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

> On 27 Oct 2023, at 18:54, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML > wrote: > > > Sure, but there’s no other list open to those interested who are not general > members. Including those of us who only have ARIN ASNs but number resources are elsewhere who cannot be general members despite paying fees.

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 14:05, John Curran wrote: > > >> On Oct 27, 2023, at 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML >> wrote: >> >> That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of the >> fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion amongst the broader >> comm

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

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

On Oct 27, 2023, at 2:32 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote: That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of the fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion amongst the broader community. While it’s true that the general-members list reached the electora

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

er 27, 2023 3:18 PM To: Heather Schiller Cc: arin-ppml Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit) On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller wrote: > We wanted to encourage discussion so we could determine support, but > not dominate the conversation. Hi Heather, Does

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

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

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

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

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

Once upon a time there was an individual who was quite vocal in their misconceptions about ARIN and RIR governance, despite not having actively participated. Attempts were made to enlighten the individual. Eventually they were nominated and ran for a seat on the AC. If there is something you are

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Oct 26, 2023, at 21:01, Martin Hannigan wrote:On Thu, Oct 26, 2023 at 23:51 Fernando Frediani wrote:Well said. I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with evolution and

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

This time strangely I will have to agree with Owen. This is the forum to discuss this topic that concerns everyone here. It is very pertinent. Thanks we are having this discussion than not having. And as far as I saw nothing got out of the controll and everyone is being able to put up their view a

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

: 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 ch

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

That sounds good in principle, Michael, but the reality is that none of the fora you suggested provide for an interactive discussion amongst the broader community. While it’s true that the general-members list reached the electorate, the impact of the AC is felt not only by the electorate, but

Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates

Hello PPML participants, I have observed that the PPML discussions have become increasingly focused on election related items. As this is the forum for policy discussions, and the fact that we are in the middle of an election cycle, I would ask that the participants provide their election-rela

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

On 2023-10-27 12:36, Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML wrote: William Herrin writes: I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community, outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process. Quantitatively? Sta

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

I think I undertand what Bill is trying to put and for me it is much simpler. How one can put his/her name available for candidacy if doesn't participate on discussions and mainly doesn't properly undertand the mechanics of how this all works ? I don't think it needs to be a written requirement bu

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

William Herrin writes: > >I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community, >outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating >a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process. >Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post >t

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

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 9:46 AM Leif Sawyer wrote: > you can't > evaluate each AC member based on their public interactions here on the > mailing list, Hi Leif, Not only can I do so, when I voted I did. I regret only that because I procrastinated until the last minute, many of my colleagues wi

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

> > From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of William Herrin > >Since that was me, I want to clarify a nuance lest it be missed: 9 of >the 14 candidates had never posted to PPML except (in a couple cases) >in their official capacities as members of the AC. Not. Even. Once. > >I get that some folks' psyches are

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

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:05 AM Christian Tacit wrote: > 3. For my own part, in the nine years I have been on the AC, > I have not observed COIs leading to improper decision-making. Hi Chris, Yes and no. The insidious nature of conflict of interest is that it leads a person to earnestly bel

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

Dear Community Members, I have followed the discussion on participation on the mailing lists and COI with great interest and would like to make the following observations: 1. As just one example, a party that seeks to get large quantities of IPv4 addresses can have a financial interest tha

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 ev

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 a

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

: [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 >>>

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 >

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 her

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> 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 w

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 intere

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 policie

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 ord

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> 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 co

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> 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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> 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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 i

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> 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. >> >>

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 indi

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> 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 som

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 pric

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

s) > 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

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 n

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 > wan

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 thi

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

> 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 A

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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 collaborat

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

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,

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 ov

Re: [arin-ppml] 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:

Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

sage- > 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 th

  1   2   >