Send ARIN-consult mailing list submissions to
arin-consult@arin.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-consult-requ...@arin.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-consult-ow...@arin.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-consult digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Reminder - Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure
(Owen DeLong)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2021 08:17:18 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com>
To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com>
Cc: John Curran <jcur...@arin.net>, "<arin-consult@arin.net>"
<arin-consult@arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Reminder - Consultation on ARIN?s
Membership Structure
Message-ID: <552ad8f3-0257-4cf0-94de-402406d6a...@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> On Nov 5, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing
> nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a
> larger pool of GMIGS) (and considerably better than the current state, where
> only ISPs vote).
The proposal doesn?t prevent the petition threshold from increasing unless it
successfully disenfranchises a significant fraction of member organizations.
> But we could accomplish similar goals more simply, for example by just
> redefining the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting
> Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations.
Personally, I?d rather see the petition threshold set similar to the petition
thresholds in the PDP. Something like 30 unique individuals from 30 unique
organizations would be fine IMHO.
Further, even if we are going to create an enfranchised and a disenfranchised
class of members, I?d prefer to see that disenfranchisement apply only to
actual voting. The nomination process, petition process, etc. should remain
open to all members (ideally all member POCs, not just the voting POC).
> More detailed response inline below.
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:49 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com
> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
> By forcing everyone from the old fees to the ?Registration Services Plan?,
> they get membership automatically just like anyone else on an RSP.
>
> Ok, yes: after a more careful reading, I agree that the 2022 fee structure
> and the current membership guidelines would interact to produce a situation
> where ARIN approximately doubles its current membership. And I agree we
> should be comparing the proposed changes both to the "do nothing" alternative
> as well as to the current state.
>
> Without these (or some other) changes, the "do nothing" alternative would
> result in the petition threshold being raised from the current 124
> ("two-percent of eligible General Members in Good Standing") to about 250
> (with a corresponding increase in the number of organizations eligible to
> sign such petitions).
Agreed. I?m not advocating for ?do nothing?, but I am advocating for ?do
something different?.
> This proposal under consultation would prune inactive members (who haven't
> voted 3 years in a row) from the voter rolls, and require them to re-register
> to be able to vote again. In doing so, it would reduce the count of
> eligible-to-vote organizations (General Members in Good Standing)
> considerably, most likely well below 6200, thereby reducing the petition
> threshold (while selectively decreasing the organizations eligible to sign
> petitions by removing those least likely to be paying attention and
> interested in doing so) below the current level, and likely down to the
> minimum of 100. That would have the net effect of making petitions slightly
> easier than they are now.
It would also automatically and immediately disenfranchise all of the end user
organizations being coerced into higher fees and membership unless they took
specific proactive measures to cancel that disenfranchisement.
In the case of those that were entitled to, but haven?t voted in the three
previous there?s a somewhat valid point. In the case of those that didn?t
previously have membership and are being coerced into paying for membership, I
think that voting rights should be opt-out, not opt-in at the least. New
members should default to having voting rights. If they don?t vote for 3 years,
I could live with taking them off the voting roles (it still doesn?t sit well
with me, but I?d accept that as valid evidence they didn?t care). But
defaulting to ?we forced you to be a member, but we?re not going to let you
vote unless you reach out and demand your rights? strikes me as less than
honorable.
> As noted above, I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better
> than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200
> (from a larger pool of GMIGS).
I agree slightly better, but on the same level that Syphilis is slightly better
than AIDS. There are better alternatives than the proposed changes or doing
nothing. There is no reason to limit ourselves to those two choices.
> Another less restrictive alternative would be to continue to allow individual
> organizations to decide for themselves whether to receive election
> information and be eligible to participate in elections via the current
> mechanism: "designating a Voting Contact and keeping that information
> up-to-date is a crucial responsibility of each ARIN Member. Without updated
> Voting Contact information, a member organization loses the ability to vote
> in annual ARIN Elections"
> (https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/
> <https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/>). If that remains in
> place, we could redefine the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a
> valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations.
> Alternatively, if we want to start from the construct of Service Members vs.
> General Members, we could accomplish largely the same thing by removing the
> 1-year waiting period before Service Members can apply to become General
> Members.
I?d be fine with this.
> If the goal is to prevent "poorly informed single-issue voters dropping by
> for an outrage election and overwhelming the votes of the folks who've stayed
> well informed and participated over time" (as Bill Herrin put it), perhaps we
> could accomplish that simply by having the voter registration deadline (to
> apply to be a General Member, or to provide a Voting Contact, respectively)
> be something like the date of the opening of the Call for Nominations.
I guess it depends on what people are outraged about. Personally, I think that
if ARIN has managed to outrage that many existing members, perhaps such a
protection is not such a good thing. In fact, I?d much rather have existing
members doing single-issue outrage voting than have agenda-based org creation
(which would still be possible, albeit expensive) swamp the vote. (@$250 per
org, creating 400+ ORGs (which would currently do the trick, but post fee
structure change who knows?) is $100,000).
Nonetheless, while I?m not big on disenfranchising voters through any
mechanism, my biggest concern here is defaulting existing organizations that
are coerced into membership into the disenfranchised category from day 1 while
continuing to default new organizations into the enfranchised category on the
same basis. It feels asymmetric and unfair to me.
Owen
>
> -Scott
>
>
>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Can you point me to the language that makes end users into general members
>> under the new fee schedule?
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com
>>> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:scottleibr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>> I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow
>>>> people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate
>>>> and vote in ARIN elections.
>>>
>>> No, the fee structure change brings that about.
>>>
>>> These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to disenfranchise
>>> those who don?t vote in 3 consecutive elections.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places
>>>> where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".
>>>>
>>>> In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below
>>>> current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a
>>>> majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general
>>>> members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on
>>>> the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The
>>>> number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least
>>>> two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or
>>>> 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the
>>>> nomination period."
>>>>
>>>> In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth
>>>> specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled
>>>> position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with
>>>> appointed vacancies).
>>>>
>>>> -Scott
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <jcur...@arin.net
>>>> <mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:
>>>> Alan -
>>>>
>>>> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any
>>>> of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the
>>>> coming year. We intend to conduct that review annually after each
>>>> election starting after the ARIN 2023 election.
>>>>
>>>> FYI,
>>>> /John
>>>>
>>>> John Curran
>>>> President and CEO
>>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <a...@peak.org
>>>> > <mailto:a...@peak.org>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>>> >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the
>>>> >> Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two
>>>> >> weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this
>>>> >> consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership
>>>> >> going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s
>>>> >> membership structure for 2022.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/
>>>> >>
>>>> >> <https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/>
>>>> >
>>>> > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
>>>> > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
>>>> > Service and General members)?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > ARIN-Consult
>>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>>>> > Consult Mailing
>>>> > List (ARIN-consult@arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult@arin.net>).
>>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
>>>> > <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact
>>>> > the ARIN Member Services
>>>> > Help Desk at i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any
>>>> > issues.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ARIN-Consult
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>>>> Consult Mailing
>>>> List (ARIN-consult@arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult@arin.net>).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
>>>> <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the
>>>> ARIN Member Services
>>>> Help Desk at i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any
>>>> issues.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ARIN-Consult
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>>>> Consult Mailing
>>>> List (ARIN-consult@arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult@arin.net>).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
>>>> <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the
>>>> ARIN Member Services
>>>> Help Desk at i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any
>>>> issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211106/9877489e/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-consult mailing list
ARIN-consult@arin.net
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
------------------------------
End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 85, Issue 6
*******************************************
