Hi Amy,
Thanks a lot for your quick response. We should have done this before probably, so it is also my fault expecting something to happen from the other side and not pushing more for it. I don’t think everybody interprets that in the same sense as you. In fact, I realized it after some folks (native US) pointed me to re-read the minutes even if I’ve already read them before. So even if it may be an English interpreation problem, I feel that native speakers may have the same missinterpretation. I agree then that the minutes should not be amended, but the problem of who doesn’t follow the full history, read the minutes, and don’t know me (or the other co-author), is that it can be interpreted the same way “ohhhh this guy is trying to missuse ARIN for some hidden personal motivation”. We all know that all what you say in Internet is there forever, and a customer, or someone that doesn’t know me, can read that the same way, and you may guess that he/she is not going to read the full history. They may just reach the minutes with a google search. So I’m perfectly ok with your response and happy to forget all this. However, I feel that there must be some way to clarify in the minutes what you have confirmed in this email (issues 1 and 2). May be a footnote to the minutes for each of the issues? I think this is also good for the community, because something wrong as issue 1, in the AC meeting minutes is not nice at all. Thanks! Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 11/7/19 19:35, "Amy Potter" <[email protected]> escribió: Hi Jordi, It sounds like there was some miscommunication between us, and I appologize for that. >From what I understood of our conversation about the AC minutes, you felt I >had maligned your character in the meeting by saying that you had some >nefarious alternative motive for the proposal other than preventing hijacking. >I recall appologizing and telling you this was not my intention and that I >would check out the minutes and try and have them corrected if that was what >was recorded. As you quoted, what was recorded was "AP stated that she believed that the author was using ARIN to solve their problem." What I meant was that I believed the author was using the ARIN policy development process to solve the problem of BGP hijacking, which I believe is not a problem that falls within the scope of ARIN policy. I chose not to try and have the minutes changed or make a public statement because, given the context of the discussion taking place at the meeting, I believed others reading the minutes were likely to interpret the statement as intended. However Jordi clearly still feels this is not the obvious interpretation, so I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I do not believe that Jordi was trying to do anything nefarious. I believe he was trying to solve a real problem that exists, and that his goals were noble. I simply think that ARIN policy is not the appropriate vehicle. As for the statement about a previous LACNIC policy, Jordi is correct that I was mistaken about that. There was a proposal in 2016 that struck me as being out of scope in a very similar way as this one. It turns out the proposal I was reminded of was actually about settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes not about BGP hijacking. My appologies for the mixup. I do not think the minutes need to be altered, because they accurately reflect my memory of what was said. I appologize if anyone interpreted my statements as maligning Jordi's character. Nothing of the sort was intended. Amy On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:31 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> wrote: As I've said in my email, this is not about the proposal, it just reminded me that it has been 3 months, since the minutes where publish and they haven't been corrected. I've already raised this when I saw the minutes for the first time. It is not my fault if the AC has not corrected it, or publicly asked excuses. I was told at that time that the minutes are draft, and will be confirmed later on, even if I explicitly said the same you indicate "how is possible they are draft if it says they have been reviewed". Actually I'm happy if the minutes are not changed, but it should be publicly acknowledge that they contain false information and that should be somehow attached also to the published minutes. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 11/7/19 17:21, "Jimmy Hess" <[email protected]> escribió: On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, and specially the AC (as I think a response is required), > Reviewing this email, I just realized that the minutes of the 10th April 2019 minutes are still published as originally. > > There are two points that I've discussed in emails and in person with several AC members, which were clearly false and unappropriated and even one of them (at least in Spain), a criminal act (slander and damage to one's image). [snip] > 1. "AP stated that at the LACNIC meeting has discussed it and they dismissed it as out of scope". > -> This is totally false. Such thing never happened in LACNIC or any other RIR. I think this requires a public correction. I'm sure your seemingly frivolous allegation of a criminal act by AC members will NOT be appreciated by anyone. If you believe legitimate errors have been made, then I would suggest you bring up what you have without using language that would be considered as poisoning the well. Anyways, the AC minutes are moot regarding outcome of the policy proposal, as the BoT has looked at it and agreed as the proposal Prop 266 clearly was way outside the defined scope according to the ARIN policy development process; adjustments to discussion minutes would not mean that a decided action is reversed. I don't actually know whether that is false or not, but even if something brought to the discussion turned out to be inaccurate, that does not make the minutes themself incorrect -- the minutes should keep an accurate record of what was said/done; even if something that was said turned out to be an error or mistake. > I talked to Amy Potter (AP), and she confirmed that she never said that, Oh, really? Well, you can refer to published AC May minutes that says official April minutes were approved as-is without objections, in other words the people in attendance at next meeting would have agreed that the record was an accurate representation of what business transpired at that meeting. I would imagine if the AC were concerned enough about who or what exact discussion point was brought up: you would have a published statement or special business at their meeting to request an extra note in the minutes. More than 2 months and meetings later is probably a quite inappropriate time to suggest further modification to official records of a proceeding that are already approved and finalized; at this point their meeting participants are very likely to have gaps in their personal memories regarding the minute details of their discussions, who said what, etc. A member might not even recollect exactly their own words, unless they have a recording to refer to, as in, the minutes... https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/ac/meetings/2019_0516/ >" “The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 10 April 2019, as written.” >The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments. >The motion carried with no objections." -- -JH ********************************************** 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 ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. ********************************************** 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 ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
