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-bounces@nanog.org en nombre de jared@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-post@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.