On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:18 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller
> wrote:
> > We wanted to encourage discussion so we could
> > determine support, but not dominate the conversation.
>
> Hi Heather,
>
> Does holding the substantive discussion in closed
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 10:15 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2023, at 00:16, William Herrin wrote:
> > I have no qualms with the AC having a safe space to candidly discuss
> > and debate the policy proposals. But don't blow smoke up my tail that
> > they're not privately discussing and
> On Oct 29, 2023, at 00:16, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:36 PM Delong.com wrote:
>> Overall, I think it provides a better result, but making a public record of
>> absolutely everything would be cause more problems than it would solve
>> IMHO.
>
> I have no qualms
On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:36 PM Delong.com wrote:
> Overall, I think it provides a better result, but making a public record of
> absolutely everything would be cause more problems than it would solve
> IMHO.
I have no qualms with the AC having a safe space to candidly discuss
and debate the
> On Oct 28, 2023, at 10:47, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 9:45 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Ignoring the second half of that statement isn’t particularly fair play here.
>
> I like subtle things Owen, but drawing a distinction between
> discussing the discussion people had
On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 9:45 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Ignoring the second half of that statement isn’t particularly fair play here.
I like subtle things Owen, but drawing a distinction between
discussing the discussion people had about something and discussing
the something itself is too subtle
> On Oct 28, 2023, at 08:08, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:52 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller
>>> wrote:
The substantive discussion about the policy is held in
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 7:52 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller
> > wrote:
> >> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public.
> >> Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty
tainly help evaluate re-election candidates.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ARIN-PPML > <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net>> On Behalf Of William Herrin
&g
> On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller
> wrote:
>> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public.
>> Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow
>> aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality
f William Herrin
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM
> To: Heather Schiller
> Cc: arin-ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller
> wrote:
>> We wanted to encourage discussion so we could det
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller
wrote:
> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public.
> Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow
> aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality and whether
Hi Heather,
If the AC meetings are truly that dry,
The substantive discussion about the policy *is* held in public. Behind
closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow aspects, technically
sound, fairness/impartiality and whether there is community support. For
the former 2, it is often a summary of the points the community has brought
up.
---
> From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM
> To: Heather Schiller
> Cc: arin-ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)
>
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller <
> heather.ska...@gmail.co
rds,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of William Herrin
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2023 3:18 PM
> To: Heather Schiller
> Cc: arin-ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)
>
> O
, 2023 3:18 PM
To: Heather Schiller
Cc: arin-ppml
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller
wrote:
> We wanted to encourage discussion so we could determine support, but
> not dominate the conversation.
Hi Heather,
Does h
> On Oct 27, 2023, at 3:17 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the
> bulk of proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate
> to the AC *not* dominating the conversation?
Bill -
The ARIN AC holds quite a bit of
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller
wrote:
> We wanted to encourage discussion so we could
> determine support, but not dominate the conversation.
Hi Heather,
Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the
bulk of proposals see little or no public comment on
Once upon a time there was an individual who was quite vocal in their
misconceptions about ARIN and RIR governance, despite not having actively
participated. Attempts were made to enlighten the individual. Eventually
they were nominated and ran for a seat on the AC. If there is something
you
On 2023-10-27 12:36, Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML wrote:
William Herrin writes:
I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
Quantitatively?
I think I undertand what Bill is trying to put and for me it is much
simpler.
How one can put his/her name available for candidacy if doesn't participate
on discussions and mainly doesn't properly undertand the mechanics of how
this all works ?
I don't think it needs to be a written requirement
William Herrin writes:
>
>I believe that prior interaction with each segment of the community,
>outside of their duties as AC, should be a hard requirement for rating
>a candidate as "qualified" during the elections process.
>Quantitatively? Start with something simple: one policy-related post
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 9:46 AM Leif Sawyer wrote:
> you can't
> evaluate each AC member based on their public interactions here on the
> mailing list,
Hi Leif,
Not only can I do so, when I voted I did. I regret only that because
I procrastinated until the last minute, many of my colleagues
>
> From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of William Herrin
>
>Since that was me, I want to clarify a nuance lest it be missed: 9 of
>the 14 candidates had never posted to PPML except (in a couple cases)
>in their official capacities as members of the AC. Not. Even. Once.
>
>I get that some folks' psyches
On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 8:05 AM Christian Tacit wrote:
> 3. For my own part, in the nine years I have been on the AC,
> I have not observed COIs leading to improper decision-making.
Hi Chris,
Yes and no. The insidious nature of conflict of interest is that it
leads a person to earnestly
Dear Community Members,
I have followed the discussion on participation on the mailing lists and COI
with great interest and would like to make the following observations:
1. As just one example, a party that seeks to get large quantities of IPv4
addresses can have a financial interest
26 matches
Mail list logo
