Whatever it is I don’t want a repeat of this again so let me know what I am able to do to help!
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 16:39 Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspect they were given board guidance that lead to this unfortunate and > undesirable action. > > Owen > > > On Oct 11, 2021, at 20:08 , Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The members of the NomCom aren't allowed to make public statements like > that about the private proceedings of the NomCom. Given the NomCom is made > up of individuals that many of us know personally and highly respect, I > think it is unlikely that they acted with any ill intent. And if some > members of the NomCom were attempting to disqualify individuals for > political reasons or anything like that, I suspect at least one member of > the NomCom would have resigned rather than go along with it. More likely, > they were following the process they were asked to perform to the best of > their ability, and that process resulted in qualified candidates being > disqualified on some technicality. The problem is that the process is > entirely black-box, with very little transparency. The best we can hope for > this time around is that the Board investigates what happens and makes some > form of statement after the petition process is complete as to what they > found. > > Looking forward, I believe that the process needs to be reformed to be > less completely opaque, and to provide mechanisms for the NomCom to provide > feedback, to the candidates, the board, and the public, as to their reasons > whenever they choose not to place nominated candidates on the ballot. > Several suggestions have already been made on how that could be done, and I > know others are considering other mechanisms. I look forward to seeing the > board candidates' (and existing board members') positions on how they > intend to balance transparency with the need for privacy in reviewing > candidates' backgrounds. > > In any event, those solutions must by necessity be applied to future > elections, not to the current situation. The recourse for the current > situation (for ARIN members) is simply to support the petitions and then > vote in the election. > > -Scott > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:18 PM Michael B. Williams < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Is NomCom able to explain how this happened? In my opinion, unless they >> cannot offer some credible explanation everyone on NomCom should be removed >> from any position of official power at ARIN. Embarrassing to say the least. >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Michael B. Williams * >> Glexia - An IT Company >> Legal Notice: >> The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's >> confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely >> for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by >> anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any >> disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be >> taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:35 PM Jason Baugher <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> 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]> *On Behalf Of *Scott >>> Leibrand >>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 9, 2021 8:20 PM >>> *To:* arin-ppml <[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]> 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]> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> *[email protected] <[email protected]>* | *C*: >>> 770.656.1460 >>> >>> 100 Ashford Center North | Suite 110 | Atlanta, Georgia 30338 >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/100+Ashford+Center+North+%7C+Suite+110+%7C+Atlanta,+Georgia+30338?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> >>> >>> >>> <image001.jpg> <https://www.facebook.com/EclipseNetworks/> >>> <image002.jpg> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/eclipse-networks-inc/> >>> <image003.jpg> <https://twitter.com/NetworksEclipse> <image004.jpg> >>> <https://www.instagram.com/eclipsenetworks/> >>> >>> >>> >>> <image005.png> <https://www.eclipse-networks.com/> >>> >>> <image006.png><image007.png> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Mike Burns >>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 9, 2021 4:45 PM >>> *To:* Scott Leibrand <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* arin-ppml <[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] <[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]> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> >> On Oct 9, 2021, at 4:03 PM, Martin Hannigan <[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]). >>> > 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. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *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 ([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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Jason Baugher, Network Operations Manager* >>> 405 Emminga Road >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/405+Emminga+Road?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> | PO Box 217 | Golden, IL 62339-0217 >>> P:(217) 696-4411 | F:(217) 696-4811 | *www.adams.net* >>> <http://www.adams.net/> >>> [image: Adams-Logo] <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. >>> >> _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile
_______________________________________________ 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.
