Hi John,
That page doesn’t tell me where I should go to request the statement (that probably won’t be provided anyway). It’s not like I haven’t made this public and the NomCom knows my email address. Hit me up! I do hope it’s crystal clear to everybody. Regards, Mike From: John Curran <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 9:54 AM To: Mike Burns <[email protected]> Cc: john <[email protected]>; arin-ppml <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Board Election Petition underway Mike - For clarity, ARIN’s Election Processes are here - https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/elections/processes/ The current election process states that NomCom Chair may prepare an explanatory statement of the relevant factors regarding a nominee not included on an election slate, and a nominee may request a copy of their statement. I.e. - there is presently not a requirement that the NomCom provide a statement of the factors for omitting a candidate from the election slate. (Note that there are presently multiple suggestions in ARIN’s consultation/suggestion process to change this - https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/) FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers On 29 Oct 2021, at 8:02 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: "On the other hand, all rejected nominees should be entitled to know the reasons privately, and simply asking for them does not imply such waiver." Hi John, I was rejected, never got a reason, whom do I simply ask? (Just letting everybody know that it doesn't work that way currently.) Regards, Mike ---- On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 03:18:38 -0400 John Santos <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote ---- On 10/28/2021 4:47 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > First, I invite ARIN staff or Trustees to please advise if discussion of > active ASCP Suggestions is appropriate on PPML, and if not, please suggest an > alternative forum for doing so. Would arin-consult@ be a more appropriate > place for this discussion? > > Reading both of these suggestions, I agree with the goals of both of these. > That said, I would suspect that the language in 2021.22 calling for the > publication of the NomCom’s explanation for rejecting a petitioning nominee > may prove problematic from a privacy point of view. At the very least, it > should be required that a declined nominee must be made explicitly aware of, > and consent to, this disclosure as a part of the process of opening a > petition. > > -C > I assumed all along that privacy of the nominee was the reason why the explanation is not revealed, and the NomCom should reveal the explanation only if the nominee explicitly waives privacy. On the other hand, all rejected nominees should be entitled to know the reasons privately, and simply asking for them does not imply such waiver. -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 _______________________________________________ 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
