Hello list,
<blah, blah>Thanks for the contributions, I think there is evidence by the responses that this is an issue worth exploring. Let’s continue this discussion here with the caveat that proposed changes apply to future elections. I believe it’s important that the stakeholder model of Internet governance succeed. In this (to me larger) sense, we are stewards of more than a bunch of digits. We are stewards of an unusual experiment in stakeholder governance of one of life’s necessities. Yes, one of life’s necessities now, and why on earth shouldn’t it be under the purview of the governments we put in place to oversee the rest of life’s necessities? Why shouldn’t the people with guns take charge to protect their citizens privacy and security? If we are seen to fail, don’t these governments have an obligation to protect their citizens by assuming control? The current (and still young) system seems to provide a vulnerability which effectively allows the Board/AC to name their own replacements. The NomCom is comprised of 4 insiders and two volunteers selected by those same insiders. It operates in secrecy, is not required to disclose reasons for rejecting candidates, and as we can see by the limited size of the slates approved for this election cycle, can manipulate the situation to favor some and exclude others. The relief-valve is the petition process, which itself is quite onerous given the level of list participation or general participation in ARIN. Why is the requirement so high, at 25% of voting membership? Again this goes to larger and to-my-mind unresolved issues of the limits of board control versus community control. Some in this community and in other RIRs have recently argued that authority comes from the community and is delegated to the board in a limited fashion to allow execution of policy choices. Others feel the board is the authority and has rights to supersede the community’s wishes. ARIN’s board is strong, with limited community ability to recall board members or otherwise provide a check on Board power. Allowing the current nomination process to continue could allow the board/AC to consolidate even more power by filtering those with different beliefs. <end blah blah> I have some suggestions and invite others. 1. The NomCom should only be in the business of soliciting and not preventing candidacies except where direct conflict exists, for example where the nominee is on the board of another RIR or is suing the RIR. 2. The petition threshold should be 25% of the number of votes received by the bottom candidate in the prior election and that number should be tabulated and disclosed to rejected candidates when they receive their rejection notice. 3. Write-in candidacies should be considered. 4. Term limits for Board and AC members should be considered. 5. Those rejected for a candidacy must receive an explanation of the relevant factors, currently this is an option for the NomCom to disclose or not. 6. Successful petitioners should not be subject to further NomCom review. 7. Bring back ARIN-Discuss. In my case I was rejected after receiving a solicitation to run by ARIN, after the nomination deadline was extended, and when there are only 10 candidates for 7 openings on the AC. I received no explanation for my rejection. I’m willing to consider that my being a registered broker at other registries as well as ARIN might be a dealbreaker conflict, but who knows? Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jason Baugher Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 1:35 PM To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected]>; arin-ppml <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Board Election Petition underway I signed the petitions to get these 2 candidates on the ballot, because unless someone on the nom-com cares to give us a valid reason to reject them, I feel they belong there. I also answered the survey regarding the prioritization of question, choosing those that address the nom-com and overall behavior and makeup of the board to be the most important. Up until a few years ago, I paid little attention to ARIN governance and policy. What was in place didn’t affect me adversely, so I didn’t read the new policy announcements, didn’t care who was running things, didn’t even bother to vote quite honestly. It wasn’t until the somewhat recent waiting list policy change fiasco that I started making a point of following what is happening with ARIN. With that said, I consider myself somewhat of an outsider, so I may be over-simplifying things. However, this is how I’m interpreting this process. 1: The Board selects a nominating committee, which then has the authority to accept or reject candidates from the ballot. 2: The nominating committee is insulated in as such that they don’t have to provide their reasons for accepting or rejecting the candidate, even to the candidate themselves. 3: The only recourse is for the person to file a petition to get 124 member orgs to sign to be forced onto the ballot, which is a hurdle that those already accepted by the nominating committee do not have pass. 4: The end-result would appear to be a limited selection on the ballot of people hand-picked by the existing Board, thereby ensuring the overall direction of the Board stays the same. Someone else already suggested a reform to the system above, where the nom-com would have to provide their reasons for rejection, which I fully support. I’d also suggest that if there is going to be a 2% petition requirement to be on the ballot, it should be for all candidates, not just for those who the nom-com rejects. Level the playing field. Jason From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 8:20 PM To: arin-ppml <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Board Election Petition underway CAUTION: This email is from OUTSIDE our organization. Please do not open/download any attachment or click any link unless you know it's safe. In light of the public and private responses I’ve gotten to this question, it seems that the obvious explanations are considered far more credible than any innocent ones (of which none have been forthcoming this far). I would encourage everyone to support these petitions, to solicit candidates’ opinions on the matter of candidate selection, and then vote for candidates willing to publicly advocate for candidate selection reform at ARIN. Whether or not the process is currently undergoing capture, it certainly appears to lack the transparency needed to avoid it. Scott On Oct 9, 2021, at 5:37 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: There were apparently at least 5 candidates. There are 2 open board seats. The nom-com approved only 3 candidates, hence my complaint. There are 7 open advisory council seats. I did not count the nomination list size, but I assure you it was well short of 14. Owen On Oct 9, 2021, at 17:30 , Steven Ryerse <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: If there are enough candidates there ought to be at least 2 for each seat and more than 2 is also good too. Steven Ryerse President <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] | C: 770.656.1460 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338 <https://www.facebook.com/EclipseNetworks/> <image001.jpg> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eclipse-networks-inc/> <image002.jpg> <https://twitter.com/NetworksEclipse> <image003.jpg> <https://www.instagram.com/eclipsenetworks/> <image004.jpg> <https://www.eclipse-networks.com/> <image005.png> <image006.png><image007.png> From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On Behalf Of Mike Burns Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 4:45 PM To: Scott Leibrand <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: arin-ppml <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Board Election Petition underway I was rejected for an Advisory Council candidacy even though I was a candidate in the past and am a policy author in multiple registries. Another broker was likewise rejected. There are 7 AC openings, only 10 candidates, but I was rejected. I know another broker who was, like me, solicited to run but then denied a candidacy. The NomCom is comprised of four insiders, two volunteers, and operates in the dark. Not saying this is the case, but very few likeminded individuals on the AC/Board can effectively capture these via NomCom filtering. A dangerous thing for Internet governance in the context of Afrinic. I don't want the governments of the world taking over from the amateurs. But if we continue to act amateurish... Regards, Mike ---- On Sat, 09 Oct 2021 11:58:00 -0400 Scott Leibrand <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote ---- Has ARIN disclosed anything about why the NomCom chose to exclude two obviously-qualified candidates from the ballot when they didn’t yet have 2 candidates per open seat, and the 3 candidates they did include are all less well-known to the community than both the ones they excluded? I can hypothesize some possible reasons, but none of them would reflect well on the NomCom, so I am reluctant to do so without learning their stated reason(s). Scott > On Oct 9, 2021, at 7:39 AM, Bill Woodcock <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> On Oct 9, 2021, at 4:03 PM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: >> There's a petition for two people to be added to the Trustee ballot after >> being rejected by the nom com. > > Yes! Go vote on the petitions, so you’ll have more than three choices to fill > the two open board seats, when the election comes. Give yourself more options. > > -Bill > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any > issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> if you experience any issues. CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ( <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] if you experience any issues. Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager 405 Emminga Road | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217 P:(217) 696-4411 | F:(217) 696-4811 | <http://www.adams.net/> www.adams.net <http://adams.net/> _____ The information contained in this email message is PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, and is intended for the use of the addressee and no one else. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute, reproduce or use this email message (or the attachments) and notify the sender of the mistaken transmission. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ 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.
