[arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal

[Azinger, Marla]

Hi John

Given the response I think an official proposal needs to be written.  I'm happy to see the acceptance of a written proposal will be received for due process and not turned over to the recycling bin for "not being a policy topic".

I will try to get that turned in this week.

Regards
Marla

-----Original Message-----
From: John Springer [mailto:springer at inlandnet.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:51 PM
To: Azinger, Marla
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal

Hi Marla,

The current PDP requires only two things for a policy proposal to be accepted as a Draft Policy, to have a clear problem statement and be in scope for the AC.

I am sure all AC members will be delighted to work with you to arrive at the former. I am less sure how successful we will be getting around a clear statement from the BoT that such matters are not in scope. We can certainly give it a shot if that is the way you would prefer to go.

Alternately, all members of the Board of Trustees read these lists, perhaps they may take the matter up directly from here?

Or they may prefer to receive the question via the suggestion process?

https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/

The AC has had some recent experience with adopting changes to standing rules. Perhaps that might be an option.

There does appear to be a healthy amount of initial support for your idea.
How would you like to proceed?

John Springer


On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Azinger, Marla wrote:

> 
> Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC.
> 
>  
> 
> When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit.  At the time I 
> was told this was an action the BOT would have to take.  No action was 
> taken.  Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the 
> BOT did not take action.  I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of policy.  Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done.  I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a  while but for some reason never gained traction.
> 
>  
> 
> I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, 
> burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able 
> minds.  I also believe a solid
> 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person 
> and regroup.  Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking.  Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can?t get advice from them if desired.
> 
>  
> 
> I propose the following be used for AC:
> 
> -Keep the 3 year terms in place  and add
> 
> -a 6 year contiguous term limit
> 
> -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 
> 6years
> 
> -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits.  
> However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it.
> 
>  
> 
> To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion 
> of committee member candidate requirements.  This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Regards
> 
> Marla Azinger
> 
> 
>