The Board and NomCom have to know that the nominating process lends itself to
board capture.
It provides a safe and simple mechanism for that, requiring only a few people
to execute.
That kind of vulnerability is not consistent with a mature governance regime.
Thank you Cathy, for sharing.
In my recent case of rejection, I never received any interview but perhaps
that’s only for Board elections.
Still I am sure there is nothing adverse in my background and I also received
no explanations from anybody.
Something is amiss and the Board should make a statement acknowledging problems
in this cycle and undertaking specific processes to rectify things before the
next cycle. Permission should be granted to discuss this here on the ppml, the
Board should perform an investigation and make a report based on community
input and inside information regarding changes to be considered.
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Cj Aronson
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021 4:56 PM
To: Leif Sawyer <lsaw...@gci.com>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Announces the Final Slate of Candidates for the
2021 ARIN Elections
Leif
as someone who has been nominated twice and not chosen as a candidate I have
asked for (in addition to transparency)
- The results of the background check of me that was done as part of the process
- The synopsis of the interview with the contractor who interviews candidates
and gives a synopsis to the nomcom.
The interview with the consultant is new and who knows what that person tells
the nomcom? The first time I was interviewed by the nomcom but was not told
who was on the call that day. It was super weird.
These requests went unanswered by the nomcom. I got a "that's a good
suggestion I'll look into it" and then nothing.
-----Cathy
{Ô,Ô}
(( ))
◊ ◊
On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 2:44 PM Leif Sawyer <lsaw...@gci.com
<mailto:lsaw...@gci.com> > wrote:
Mike -
Speaking only as myself, and not as a member of the AC or the NomCom:
I hear your frustrations for transparency, and I have formulated a suggestion
that I've shared with the NomCom to improve the way that candidate responses
are handled.
To wit -
I've suggested simple, impartial, boilerplate language that would be used
for all candidates, to show where those candidates were marked as "needing
additional improvement"
Examples of those areas were:
ethics, business, governance, communication, finance, and education
There is obviously room for other areas. I'd love to hear what your thoughts
would be.
Thanks,
Leif Sawyer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net
<mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net> ).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any
issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
