Dear Community,

I am sending this letter at the best wishes for future stable growth and peaceful discussion.

My colleague David proposed the policy No Need in APNIC region. The discussion went fairly well, until a point when Adam rose up and declared that the CONFER system was being gamed, he was clearly and understandably emotional.

But, in the manner he did that, as the company who are proposing the policy ware receiving overwhelming support in the CONFER system at the time he made the declaration, understandably putting us the top suspect for gaming the system.

This is not acceptable, and admittedly, it makes me emotionally unhappy, David is making a policy proposal to try to improve certain aspect of IP pool management for the whole APNIC community and it is now implied that he is part of a rigged policy making process.

This clearly is not good for us or for anyone else.

I had words with APNIC staff shortly after the session closed, and got further accusations to be part of gaming the system, which further aggravated me, now the accusation was direct.

While I point out that the amount of people supporting the policy wasn’t just 3 or 4 in the room, one of APNIC Staff said direct to my face that he does not believe me, as I was lying, while I suggesting we can go to the hallway and confront people who ware just supported the policy during the process to future confirm the actually number of support, to check the fact of each of our claim. he simply asked me to get out of his face, literally, “get out of my face”.

As a member of this community and regular attendee to the meetings, I will have to say the behavior of staff was less than acceptable, accusations thrown in like this must be backed up or you just destroy someone's reputation without any proof!

If the system was being gamed, it must be announced in a manner that put no one in doubt.

If the system was simply less than perfect, works not as intended, it should simply be announced as a trial run and we need to fix the system.

In any case, accusation that serious, or even doubt that serious(as Adam was ask me directly if I gamed the system), need to be backed with hard solicit evidence.

Both as company and individual, we value our reputation in the community dearly, we are trying to contribute to the community not in our own interest, but in the interest of many, before we proposed the policy, we have discussed it with many members of APNIC, friends in the community, that many of them think it is a good path to move forward with.

While waiting for the solicit evidence the system was gamed to absolutely clear our name and reputation, I would like ask APNIC being future careful in implementing such less than perfect system for such sensitive discussion.