I'm not sure I even get the point why it was written and sent, as there was no
requirement for explanation.
Why would even one, much less two or three people think it was a good idea?
---- On Mon, 08 Nov 2021 17:34:25 -0500 Martin Hannigan <[email protected]>
wrote ----
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 17:25 Jay Hennigan <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/4/21 10:47, John Curran wrote:
> Patrick -
>
> To be clear, this was the statement as prepared by Catherine Middleton,
> in her role as Chair of this year’s Nomination Committee. The relevant
> portion of the ARIN Election Process is attached for reference.
[snip]
> 1.
> In consultation with ARIN’s GC, the NomCom Chair may prepare an
> explanatory statement of the relevant factors regarding a nominee
> not included on an election slate.
Note: "In consultation with ARIN’s GC...."
[snip]
>> On 4 Nov 2021, at 11:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <mailto:[email protected]
>> <mailto:mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Sounds to me like a lawyer wrote it, not a member of the NomCom.
>>
>> Which implies the NomCom was not allowed to answer.
Yep. This pretty much confirms that Patrick was right.
“Prepared by” is also not “written by”. I’d feel ok with a guess by the style
that John did a fair amount of editing too.
$0.02
-M<
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (mailto:[email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact 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.
