[ARIN-consult] Reminder: Consultation on Increasing the size of the ARIN Board of Trustees

[Mike Burns]

I have read this thread. No amount of quibbling changes the inequity of the status quo.

 

The proposal is reasonable. It is unlikely that it is perfect, but it will give us data. A little data is worth a dozen discussions of who is not to be admitted and why proposals must be categorically rejected. If the ARIN community decides that only white guys from the US or Canada are suitable to be Trustees, that is a problem for another day.

 

It would also be good if candidates for BoT and AC make their views known.

 

Esteemed BoT members, I can feel you listening. Please don't be dissuaded from taking action. Incremental change is good. Carefully take under consideration all viewpoints, by all means be sure that fairness can be assured and then do this, please.

John,

The TSA has offered no finer argument for taking useless and harmful action in the name of a good cause. Theater, some call it. But I wouldn't want to quibble.

Regards,

Bill Herrin



Hi John and Bill,

 

I don’t think referring to prior mail lists postings as “quibble” is appropriate, especially without directly addressing the arguments contained therein.

 

I also don’t think that having ARIN fundamentally change a principle of multi-stakeholder governance is “incremental.”

 

One member, one unfettered vote. Anybody can stand for election before his or her peers.

Goodbye to those principles, but at least they are being jettisoned in order to deal with an overwhelming and unbearable problem, right?

 

ARIN is about number registration, not about defining groups of members and making them “more equal” than other members.

Not about addressing society’s ills, or signaling virtue, or redressing wrongs, howevermuch each of us might wish to address those things.

It’s beyond our remit.  If the board is not functioning well, please provide evidence, or even anecdotes, heck, even hypotheticals.

 

If the community feels that the viewpoint of a certain gender or homeland or skill set is valuable, it is free to choose whomever it wants to meet that need.

I don’t know what could be “assured” to be “fairer” than that.

 

The questions I asked remain unanswered among the quibbling:

 

Who chooses what groups are preferred?

How are those groups defined?

Who verifies inclusion in the groups?

What prevents the proliferation of defined groups?

 

Any single one of those questions can only be answered with hours and hours of fraught debate and rulemaking. How can the Board make this decision without beforehand clearly answering the questions above?

 

Considering that the issues presented to the Board relate *only to the registration of numbers*, and that no evidence has been forthcoming that indicates the Board’s decisions have suffered from lack of diversity, what is the scope of the problem that would justify up-ending the principles of multi-stakeholderism?

 

Regards,

Mike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20170609/ac2b5b3d/attachment.html>