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
wrote
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 17:25
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 17:25 Jay Hennigan 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
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
IHi Owen,
I haven't yet formulated a proposal. I have formulated a goal which is to state
objective public qualifications as a threshold for nomination with the removal
of the NomCom's ability to restrict those who meet the threshold.
As a guide I suggest we refer to the RIPE model which does
> On Nov 4, 2021, at 12:38 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps we should consider whether we still want nomcom, it might be hard to
> find volunteers now that public flaying is a real possibility.
>
> The alternative I can think of being self nomination with threshold of
> supporting
Thank you, John. However, the first words in the quoted portion of the process
are: “In consultation with ARIN’s GC”. Nothing in that process prevents the
Chair from asking the GC for a draft, then sending it to the nominee as-is.
Not that it matters. Whether you believe it sounds like a lawyer
Mike,
I will disagree. The proposal is to require an explanation. The letter you got
was not an explanation, it was a clear exercise of the nominating committees
option not to explain themselves if they choose not to.
If they were required to provide an explanation to candidates, I do not
> On Nov 4, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> Mike,
>
> I’m not sure I would’ve expected anything different.
>
> BTW: Lets not forget that ARIN does a good job overall. BoT. AC. NRO NC. And
> the staff. Its a team effort. And we are part of the team. Vote!
Voting has a
+1
Owen
> On Nov 4, 2021, at 9:44 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> This is very disappointing. Under the process to date, it was the NomCom's
> prerogative not to provide an explanation. But this non-explanation makes a
> mockery of the entire concept of an explanation. It literally says
Perhaps we should consider whether we still want nomcom, it might be
hard to find volunteers now that public flaying is a real possibility.
The alternative I can think of being self nomination with threshold of
supporting members.
Perhaps the nomcom job should be mostly ensuring objective
Agreed. This is utterly embarrassing. How did they think this is an
appropriate response given the conversation going on this list? Perhaps
lawyers? What needs to be done to fix this so if those being rejected
request transparency that transparency is provided?
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 3:18 PM
+2
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 2:18 PM William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:44 AM Scott Leibrand
> wrote:
> > this non-explanation makes a mockery of the entire concept of an
> explanation.
>
> +1
>
> When in the course of human events, a decent respect to the opinions
> of mankind
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 9:44 AM Scott Leibrand wrote:
> this non-explanation makes a mockery of the entire concept of an explanation.
+1
When in the course of human events, a decent respect to the opinions
of mankind requires we say the dude just wasn't good enough. Really?
Regards,
Bill Herrin
Pretty lame description. All it does is recap what they are chartered to do. He
deserves more detail specifically about his situation even if it is done in
private. My 2 cents.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 4, 2021, at 2:15 PM, geneb wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, Mike Burns wrote:
>
>>
My Best wishes for Catherine Middleto.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 12:47 PM 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
On Thu, 4 Nov 2021, Mike Burns wrote:
Hello list,
Dear Mr. Burns,
The ARIN Nomination Committee (NomCom) is in receipt of your request for
an explanatory statement on the reasons why you were not included on the
Advisory Council candidate slate for the 2021 ARIN Elections. The ARIN
NomCom
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.
Thanks.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet
Hi Martin,
Oh I didn't expect much, that's why I didn't ask for this letter in the
beginning. When it arrived it just confirmed my suspicions and I posted it to
allow others to understand that merely requiring this letter will do nothing to
fix the situation.
It's only because I want Arin to
Mike,
I’m not sure I would’ve expected anything different.
BTW: Lets not forget that ARIN does a good job overall. BoT. AC. NRO NC.
And the staff. Its a team effort. And we are part of the team. Vote!
Warm regards,
-M<
On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 11:53 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Sounds to me
Sounds to me like a lawyer wrote it, not a member of the NomCom.
Which implies the NomCom was not allowed to answer.
--
TTFN,
patrick
> On Nov 4, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> This is very disappointing. Under the process to date, it was the NomCom's
> prerogative not to
This is very disappointing. Under the process to date, it was the
NomCom's prerogative not to provide an explanation. But this
non-explanation makes a mockery of the entire concept of an explanation. It
literally says nothing about why the candidate was not selected. It simply
restates the
Hello list,
I received the explanation for my exclusion from this year's AC slate.
For those who believe this explanation provides any transparency, I post it in
its totality below to disabuse them of that notion.
Required explanations don't move the needle at all in attempting to improve
22 matches
Mail list logo
