Hi Scott,
I think there are much more dramatic changes necessary.
Look at the way things are done in RIPE, it is quite different.
The NomCom can be advisory, it doesn't have to be exclusionary.
Having 10 candidates for 7 openings is ridiculous and only acceptable if there
is a dearth of qualified candidates.
We were told the NomCom has had to beat the bushes for qualified candidates.
Yet here we have plain evidence that things have changed and qualified
candidates are being excluded.
Whether this is an idiosyncratic event or not, the vulnerability presented by
maintaining a star-chamber empowered with filtering qualified candidates
continues to exist.
The board/AC is quite capable of naming its own replacements via the workings
of such a setup, whether or not that has ever been attempted.
We need a deeper discussion of the role of the NomCom and the risk of board
capture it presents.
Regards,
Mike
---- On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 20:35:39 -0400 Scott Leibrand
<scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote ----
The current process for explanations balances privacy and transparency well, if
and only if the NomCom chooses to provide an explanation: the explanation is
private unless the candidate chooses to petition or publicly discuss being
passed over, in which case ARIN does or can post it publicly.
The missing piece is actually requiring the NomCom to provide an explanation to
the candidate if asked: right now it’s optional and they rarely do. IMO that is
the most important change the Board should make to the nominations process.
(There are some others I’d like to see as well, but they’re less essential.)
Scott
> On Oct 19, 2021, at 5:30 PM, William Herrin <mailto:b...@herrin.us> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 1:43 PM Leif Sawyer <mailto:lsaw...@gci.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Hi Leif,
>
> Why not simply ask the rejected candidates if they want an explanation
> in specificity with the understanding that if they answer yes, the
> explanation will be made publicly? That respects both privacy and
> transparency.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> mailto:b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact 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 (mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact 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.
