From marty at litewire.net  Tue Nov  2 07:52:55 2021
From: marty at litewire.net (Marty Howard)
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:52:55 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 84, Issue 19
Message-ID: <a83a8e31b70a448e9700774abd397ce8@litewire.net>

Good day! I send here a recordwith a full description of the recent accident. Please check it here:


1)ichibansystems.pe/exercitationemfacilis/accusamuslibero-2101400

2)dhre.global/nostrumautem/omnisdolores-2101400

Send ARIN-consult mailing list submissions to
arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-consult-request at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult-request at arin.net>

You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-consult-owner at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult-owner at arin.net>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-consult digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: [arin-announce] ACSP Consultation 2021.5: Consultation
on ARIN?s Membership Structure (Owen DeLong)
2. Re: ACSP Consultation 2021.5: Consultation on ARIN?s
Membership Structure (William Herrin)
3. Re: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[arin-announce] ACSP Consultation
2021.5: Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure (Owen DeLong)
4. Re: ACSP Consultation 2021.5: Consultation on ARIN?s
Membership Structure (John Curran)
5. Re: [arin-announce] ACSP Consultation 2021.5: Consultation
on ARIN?s Membership Structure (John Curran)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 21:17:42 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com><mailto:owen at delong.com>>
To: Paul Andersen - ARIN <paul at arin.net><mailto:paul at arin.net>>
Cc: Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com><mailto:rlaager at wiktel.com>>, arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] ACSP Consultation 2021.5:
Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure
Message-ID: <4ADC202B-16B2-4758-87D1-3A0BA6A1A3F0 at delong.com><mailto:4ADC202B-16B2-4758-87D1-3A0BA6A1A3F0 at delong.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"



> On Oct 28, 2021, at 14:42 , Paul Andersen - ARIN <paul at arin.net><mailto:paul at arin.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 28, 2021, at 5:24 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager at wiktel.com> <mailto:rlaager at wiktel.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/28/21 4:19 PM, Paul Andersen - ARIN wrote:
>>>
>>> There were 603 Member Orgs who voted for the BoT, 595 who voted for the AC. I?d make an educated guess that there is high overlap between the two. But a larger pool of potential members will come with the End Users who will be eligible to become members but it is hard to know how many will want to be engaged. Nor can we tell whether a mandate to vote to stay a member may engage more members.
>> So the nomination-by-petition threshold is being raised from 2% of ~600 = 10 to 100. That's quite a big jump. What's the rationale for this
>>
>
> The number of voting members isn?t expected to drop since we?ve had a pretty steady count the past five years.
>
> 2020 - 603
> 2019 - 545
> 2018 - 660
> 2017 - 491
> 2016 - 583
>

But?

That means that if this had been in place in 2015, that in 2017, the 491 voters would have to have been made up entirely of new members + some true subset of the 583 that voted in 2016.
In 2018, you couldn?t have achieved 660 voters unless 169 additional voters came from some combination of 2015-disenfranchisees and 2017 new members.
So your number in 2018 would likely have been far less than 660.

In fact, it seems to me that this process is very likely to create a continuing downward trend in the number of active voters by creating a downward trend in eligible voters even without membership
attrition.

> And I think we can safely assume a noticeable increase from end users given many are engaged on the lists and now have the ability to become members.

They?ve had the ability to become members for quite some time now. Now they are being coerced into membership whether they want it or not, along with a substantial fee hike in exchange for the privilege.

> But an obvious side effect of this proposal is there will be a drop at some point when those who have chosen not to stay as an engaged member drop off which throws off the percentages. I don?t think the thresholds in reality will be hard to achieve but welcome the feedback.

It?ll get pretty exciting if/when you end up with <100 ?general? members and someone wants to petition.

>> Separately, what's the rationale for requiring active voting to maintain voting rights?
>>
>
> There are organizations who come to ARIN (sometimes frequently, sometimes once in a blue moon) and just want to use ARIN services and do not wish to be general members and this change allows that. For those that do choose to become members we are asking them to show their commitment to some degree of engagement. This was seen as a simple to track method; however, I think we?d very much welcome suggestions that are not burdensome on the organization to track.

How about something more like annual POC validation that asks the voting contact for the organization to choose a simple ?Yes/No? to ?Do you wish to remain the voting contact for $ORG?? once a year?

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211028/50bdf425/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 21:22:44 -0700
From: William Herrin <bill at herrin.us><mailto:bill at herrin.us>>
Cc: "<arin-consult at arin.net><mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>" <arin-consult at arin.net><mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2021.5: Consultation on
ARIN?s Membership Structure
Message-ID:
<CAP-guGVNswXuvwaRfasjfjfsJb+4gbO577Ru31QdFTVpR5zw9g at mail.gmail.com><mailto:CAP-guGVNswXuvwaRfasjfjfsJb+4gbO577Ru31QdFTVpR5zw9g at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 1:47 PM ARIN <info at arin.net><mailto:info at arin.net>> wrote:
> General members (whether existing or new ones who were previously end user organizations and opted to become General Members) must participate in ARIN Elections to maintain their status. Following the 2023 ARIN annual election and each election thereafter, General Members that did not cast a ballot in any of the previous three ARIN elections will become Service Members and will not be eligible to apply for General Member status until after the coming year.

I notice that this text is not in the bylaws change. The way the
bylaws have been rewritten, the sitting board of trustees can redefine
the qualifications for who is permitted to vote in elections for the
board of trustees at any time with immediate effect, leaving no
obvious recourse for anyone disenfranchised by the change. A general
member must "meet any eligibility requirements" defined by the BoT
with no restrictions on the BoT altering those requirements.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us<mailto:bill at herrin.us>
https://bill.herrin.us/


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 21:28:12 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com><mailto:owen at delong.com>>
To: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net><mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>
Cc: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com><mailto:mike at iptrading.com>>, "arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>"
<arin-consult at arin.net><mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;[arin-announce]
ACSP Consultation 2021.5: Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure
Message-ID: <5CF01716-E60C-4419-A5E0-ECD5EB151265 at delong.com><mailto:5CF01716-E60C-4419-A5E0-ECD5EB151265 at delong.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"



> On Oct 28, 2021, at 16:05 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net><mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>
> Mike -
>
> We do not know how many of the 7000 end-users will opt for general membership - I suspect a few end-user participants on this list will do so, and perhaps several hundred more (e.g. 300 to 500)

Both of me will.

> Of our existing general membership, it is estimated that only about 1200 or so organizations have voted in one of the past three elections. If that is indicative of the 2021 - 2022 - 2023 election period, then in 2024 we would see many of the existing general members recategorized as service members and end up with a general membership of 1500 or so (300 + 1200 = 1500)

Given that roughly 600 organizations participated in each of the past three elections, a total of 1200 organizations is a surprisingly low overlap amongst voting organizations across three years.

> 2% of 1500 is 30, so that could easily be the 2024 petition threshold absent the ?100 minimum? language. Realistically though, all of those who might participate in a petition then would be the same as the community today (or even larger given the end-users who consciously decide to become general members), and a petition threshold of 124 was satisfied by two candidates in the present election.

What?s wrong with a petition threshold of 30 among 1500 eligible signatories?

> Our petition threshold is set as a percentage of general members, so the moment that the general member count becomes reflective of the actively involved community rather than just the count of ISPs in ARIN, then the 2% petition threshold will drop ? and this despite the fact that the active community will be the same size as today or even larger.

The problem is that it won?t drop as far as it should. Unless you?re claiming that 100% of petition signatories are from the ?active community? in this election, I think Mike is right about the tone deafness of this move.

It takes a pretty impressive level of tone deafness to produce a result where Mike Burns and I agree on something.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211028/d333f436/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:04:57 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net><mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>
To: BIll Herrin <bill at herrin.us><mailto:bill at herrin.us>>
Cc: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com><mailto:owen at delong.com>>, "<arin-consult at arin.net><mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>"
<arin-consult at arin.net><mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2021.5: Consultation on
ARIN?s Membership Structure
Message-ID: <684F2C3A-A865-4DE4-9B00-E9D3573EC7AC at arin.net><mailto:684F2C3A-A865-4DE4-9B00-E9D3573EC7AC at arin.net>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 29 Oct 2021, at 12:00 AM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us><mailto:bill at herrin.us>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 8:55 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult
> <arin-consult at arin.net><mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>> wrote:
>> This effectively imposes a disenfranchisement on dues paying members for at least one additional year if they choose to abstain or accidentally fail to vote in an ARIN election.
>
> 3 elections. Unless I misunderstood, they have to miss 3 elections in a row.

Bill -

That is correct: general members who voted in any of the past three annual elections are fine ? it is only if you fail to vote in each of the previous three elections that an organization reverts to service members for the coming year.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:26:53 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net><mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com><mailto:owen at delong.com>>
Cc: "arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>" <arin-consult at arin.net><mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] ACSP Consultation 2021.5:
Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure
Message-ID: <AF4908A4-1B6E-4C3F-94E3-F0372CD0B3BA at arin.net><mailto:AF4908A4-1B6E-4C3F-94E3-F0372CD0B3BA at arin.net>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

On 29 Oct 2021, at 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com><mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>
> Right, so if you get down to less than 2,000 general members, a petition requires 100 of them to sign.
>
> If you get down to 99 general members and everyone else has become a service member, petitions become impossible.

Given that we presently have more than 500 organizations voting each year (and are about to double the number of organizations that can vote in ARIN elections), the general membership is highly unlikely to ever be less than 100...

> Am I missing something?

See above.

> Shouldn?t at least the petition signature process be open to all members and not just general members?

As we?ve discovered in the past, there?s many organizations that simply wish to receive ARIN services and not be bothered with the various aspects of ARIN governance such as nominations, elections and petitions.

Any service member that wishes to participate in ARIN governance can readily do but does pick up a rather light obligation to vote at least once every three years to maintain that right ? and an organization that fails to do so only loses that right to be a general member for the coming year.

If an organization wishes to participate an upcoming election, it simply needs to opt into general membership (including assigning a voting contact) before the list of eligible voters for the election is set ? this happens approximately 45 days before the election (and is an existing requirement today or those who wish to support a petition; one must be an eligible voter for the election in order to participate in the petition process.)

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers




------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
ARIN-consult mailing list
ARIN-consult at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult


------------------------------

End of ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 84, Issue 19
********************************************
________________________________
Total Control Panel     Login<https://portal.reflexion.net/login?domain=litewire.net>

To: marty at litewire.net<https://portal.reflexion.net/address-properties?aID=242260992&domain=litewire.net>
From: arin-consult-bounces at arin.net

Message Score: 1        High (60): Pass
My Spam Blocking Level: High    Medium (75): Pass
        Low (90): Pass
Block<https://portal.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=3&bl-sender-address=1&hID=50721823264&domain=litewire.net> this sender / Block<https://portal.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=3&ent=1&bl-sender-address=1&hID=50721823264&domain=litewire.net> this sender enterprise-wide
Block<https://portal.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=3&bl-sender-domain=1&hID=50721823264&domain=litewire.net> arin.net / Block<https://portal.reflexion.net/FooterAction?ver=3&ent=1&bl-sender-domain=1&hID=50721823264&domain=litewire.net> arin.net enterprise-wide


This message was delivered because the content filter score did not exceed your filter level.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211102/594529d8/attachment.htm>

From info at arin.net  Fri Nov  5 12:48:31 2021
From: info at arin.net (ARIN)
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2021 12:48:31 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
Message-ID: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>

Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.

The full text of the consultation is available at:

https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/

Please provide comments to?arin-consult at arin.net. You can subscribe to this mailing list at:?http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult.

We look forward to your feedback on this important issue.

Regards,

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)







From alan at peak.org  Fri Nov  5 12:59:00 2021
From: alan at peak.org (Alan Batie)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:59:00 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
Message-ID: <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>

On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
> 
> The full text of the consultation is available at:
> 
> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/

If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
Service and General members)?




From jcurran at arin.net  Fri Nov  5 18:33:48 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 22:33:48 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
Message-ID: <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>

Alan - 

Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election. 

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


> On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <alan at peak.org> wrote:
> 
> On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
>> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
>> 
>> The full text of the consultation is available at:
>> 
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/
> 
> If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
> going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
> Service and General members)?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Fri Nov  5 19:31:49 2021
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 16:31:49 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAGkMwz7NruBte3v5HGzJuKnonMvZ9PixMguGaecgjdrNTqn5Pg@mail.gmail.com>

I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow people
like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate and
vote in ARIN elections.

Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places
where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".

In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below
current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a
majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general
members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on
the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The
number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least
two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or
20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the
nomination period."

In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth
specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled
position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with
appointed vacancies).

-Scott

On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> Alan -
>
> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any
> of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the
> coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each
> election starting after the ARIN 2023 election.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
> > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <alan at peak.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
> >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the
> Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It
> will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to
> provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek
> feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
> >>
> >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
> >>
> >>
> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/
> >
> > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
> > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
> > Service and General members)?
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ARIN-Consult
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211105/c2f993ab/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Fri Nov  5 22:10:26 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 19:10:26 -0700
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_[ARIN-consult]_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz7NruBte3v5HGzJuKnonMvZ9PixMguGaecgjdrNTqn5Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGkMwz7NruBte3v5HGzJuKnonMvZ9PixMguGaecgjdrNTqn5Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>



> On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ?
> I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate and vote in ARIN elections.

No, the fee structure change brings that about. 

These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to disenfranchise those who don?t vote in 3 consecutive elections. 

Owen

> 
> Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".
> 
> In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the nomination period."
> 
> In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with appointed vacancies).
> 
> -Scott
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> Alan - 
>> 
>> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election. 
>> 
>> FYI,
>> /John
>> 
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>> 
>> 
>> > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <alan at peak.org> wrote:
>> > 
>> > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
>> >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
>> >> 
>> >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
>> >> 
>> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/
>> > 
>> > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
>> > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
>> > Service and General members)?
>> > 
>> > 
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ARIN-Consult
>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Consult
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211105/f57fbc63/attachment.htm>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Fri Nov  5 22:29:03 2021
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 19:29:03 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
Message-ID: <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>

Can you point me to the language that makes end users into general members under the new fee schedule?

Scott

> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> ?
> 
> 
>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>> ?
>> I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate and vote in ARIN elections.
> 
> No, the fee structure change brings that about. 
> 
> These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to disenfranchise those who don?t vote in 3 consecutive elections. 
> 
> Owen
> 
>> 
>> Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".
>> 
>> In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the nomination period."
>> 
>> In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with appointed vacancies).
>> 
>> -Scott
>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> Alan - 
>>> 
>>> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election. 
>>> 
>>> FYI,
>>> /John
>>> 
>>> John Curran
>>> President and CEO
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <alan at peak.org> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>> >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
>>> >> 
>>> >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
>>> >> 
>>> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/
>>> > 
>>> > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
>>> > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
>>> > Service and General members)?
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ARIN-Consult
>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-Consult
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Consult
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211105/300a292d/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Sat Nov  6 00:48:55 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 21:48:55 -0700
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>

By forcing everyone from the old fees to the ?Registration Services Plan?, they get membership automatically just like anyone else on an RSP.

Owen


> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Can you point me to the language that makes end users into general members under the new fee schedule?
> 
> Scott
> 
>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate and vote in ARIN elections.
>> 
>> No, the fee structure change brings that about. 
>> 
>> These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to disenfranchise those who don?t vote in 3 consecutive elections. 
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> 
>>> Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".
>>> 
>>> In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the nomination period."
>>> 
>>> In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with appointed vacancies).
>>> 
>>> -Scott
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>>> Alan - 
>>> 
>>> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election. 
>>> 
>>> FYI,
>>> /John
>>> 
>>> John Curran
>>> President and CEO
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>> 
>>> 
>>> > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <alan at peak.org <mailto:alan at peak.org>> wrote:
>>> > 
>>> > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>> >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
>>> >> 
>>> >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
>>> >> 
>>> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/>
>>> > 
>>> > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
>>> > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
>>> > Service and General members)?
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > ARIN-Consult
>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>> > Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-Consult
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ARIN-Consult
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211105/c515ff41/attachment.htm>

From scottleibrand at gmail.com  Sat Nov  6 01:48:42 2021
From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 22:48:42 -0700
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
Message-ID: <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>

I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing
nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a
larger pool of GMIGS) (and considerably better than the current state,
where only ISPs vote).

But we could accomplish similar goals more simply, for example by just
redefining the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting
Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations.

More detailed response inline below.

On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:49 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> By forcing everyone from the old fees to the ?Registration Services Plan?,
> they get membership automatically just like anyone else on an RSP.
>

Ok, yes: after a more careful reading, I agree that the 2022 fee structure
and the current membership guidelines would interact to produce a situation
where ARIN approximately doubles its current membership. And I agree we
should be comparing the proposed changes both to the "do nothing"
alternative as well as to the current state.

Without these (or some other) changes, the "do nothing" alternative would
result in the petition threshold being raised from the current 124
("two-percent of eligible General Members in Good Standing") to about 250
(with a corresponding increase in the number of organizations eligible to
sign such petitions).

This proposal under consultation would prune inactive members (who haven't
voted 3 years in a row) from the voter rolls, and require them to
re-register to be able to vote again. In doing so, it would reduce the
count of eligible-to-vote organizations (General Members in Good Standing)
considerably, most likely well below 6200, thereby reducing the petition
threshold (while selectively decreasing the organizations eligible to sign
petitions by removing those least likely to be paying attention and
interested in doing so) below the current level, and likely down to the
minimum of 100. That would have the net effect of making petitions slightly
easier than they are now.

As noted above, I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly
better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase
to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS).

Another less restrictive alternative would be to continue to allow
individual organizations to decide for themselves whether to receive
election information and be eligible to participate in elections via the
current mechanism: "designating a Voting Contact and keeping that
information up-to-date is a crucial responsibility of each ARIN Member.
Without updated Voting Contact information, a member organization loses the
ability to vote in annual ARIN Elections" (
https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/). If that remains in
place, we could redefine the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a
valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations.
Alternatively, if we want to start from the construct of Service Members
vs. General Members, we could accomplish largely the same thing by removing
the 1-year waiting period before Service Members can apply to become
General Members.

If the goal is to prevent "poorly informed single-issue voters dropping by
for an outrage election and overwhelming the votes of the folks who've
stayed well informed and participated over time" (as Bill Herrin put it),
perhaps we could accomplish that simply by having the voter registration
deadline (to apply to be a General Member, or to provide a Voting Contact,
respectively) be something like the date of the opening of the Call for
Nominations.

-Scott


>
> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Can you point me to the language that makes end users into general members
> under the new fee schedule?
>
> Scott
>
> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> ?
>
>
> On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?
> I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow
> people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate
> and vote in ARIN elections.
>
>
> No, the fee structure change brings that about.
>
> These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to
> disenfranchise those who don?t vote in 3 consecutive elections.
>
> Owen
>
>
> Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places
> where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".
>
> In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below
> current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a
> majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general
> members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on
> the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The
> number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least
> two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or
> 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the
> nomination period."
>
> In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth
> specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled
> position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with
> appointed vacancies).
>
> -Scott
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>
>> Alan -
>>
>> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any
>> of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the
>> coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each
>> election starting after the ARIN 2023 election.
>>
>> FYI,
>> /John
>>
>> John Curran
>> President and CEO
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>
>>
>> > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <alan at peak.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
>> >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the
>> Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It
>> will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to
>> provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek
>> feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
>> >>
>> >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/
>> >
>> > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
>> > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
>> > Service and General members)?
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ARIN-Consult
>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>> Consult Mailing
>> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact
>> the ARIN Member Services
>> > Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Consult
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
>> Consult Mailing
>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
>> ARIN Member Services
>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the
> ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211105/a2a90fd4/attachment.htm>

From mike at iptrading.com  Sat Nov  6 11:13:42 2021
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2021 11:13:42 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17cf5d001a5.e4484122494700.6394096651567893722@iptrading.com>

We should be discussing the deeper changes to the NomCom that you yourself referred to Scott, when faced with the clear inadequacy of the NomCom's "explanations".

This petition number should be zero, because there are no good reasons why qualified candidates should have to clear that hurdle of a pre-election before the real election.

Two pre-elections, really, the dark one we presume occurs in the NomCom, and the petition process itself.



I have yet to hear a single convincing argument for retaining the NomCom's ability to exclude qualified candidates.

Two that I have heard is the danger of too many candidates, and qualified but otherwise undesirable (by inside information possessed by the NomCom) candidates getting slated.



Neither of these is a good reason for undercutting the very nature of democratic systems by imposing a dark group's exclusionary decision on the voting population, subject to increasingly onerous petition requirements for outsiders.



One more time I will point to RIPE as a valid comparison, where self-nomination with the support of 5 members is deemed a sufficient threshold to allow the voters to consider the candidate and make their own choices.? We're the one having public and embarrassing problems, while RIPE has dealt with self-nominating troublemakers successfully (IMO) within their system.



In the context of current events, this change to the petition process which actually make it harder to petition, is completely tone-deaf and I object to this change.? We heard multiple comments at the open mic and on the ppml related to providing checks or outright removing the NomCom, yet here we are considering terminology that strengthens this star-chamber at the expense of rejected candidates like me.



If at all possible, I would pause this consultation until the Board has a chance to consider changes to the NomCom that could impact these revisions significantly, and either makes those changes (or not) prior to making a decision on this language regarding minimum thresholds for petitions.





Regards,

Mike













---- On Sat, 06 Nov 2021 01:48:42 -0400 Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote ----





I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS) (and considerably better than the current state, where only ISPs vote).




But we could accomplish similar?goals more simply, for example by just redefining the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations.


More detailed response inline below.



On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:49 PM Owen DeLong <mailto:owen at delong.com> wrote:

By forcing everyone from the old fees to the ?Registration Services Plan?, they get membership automatically just like anyone else on an RSP.




Ok, yes: after a more careful reading, I agree that the 2022 fee structure and the current membership guidelines would interact to produce a situation where ARIN approximately doubles its current membership. And I agree we should be comparing the proposed changes both to the "do nothing" alternative as well as to the current state.?



Without these (or some other) changes, the "do nothing" alternative would result in the petition threshold being raised from the current 124 ("two-percent of eligible General Members in Good Standing") to about 250 (with a corresponding increase in the number of organizations eligible to sign such petitions).



This proposal under consultation would prune inactive members (who haven't voted 3 years in a row) from the voter rolls, and require them to re-register to be able to vote again. In doing so, it would reduce the count of eligible-to-vote organizations (General Members in Good Standing) considerably, most likely well below 6200, thereby reducing the petition threshold (while selectively decreasing the organizations eligible to sign petitions by removing those least likely to be paying attention and interested in doing so) below the current level, and likely down to the minimum of 100. That would have the net effect of making petitions slightly easier than they are now.



As noted above, I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS).




Another less restrictive alternative would be to continue to allow individual organizations to decide for themselves whether to receive election information and be eligible to participate in elections via the current mechanism: "designating a Voting Contact and keeping that information up-to-date is a crucial responsibility of each ARIN Member. Without updated Voting Contact information, a member organization loses the ability to vote in annual ARIN Elections" (https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/). If that remains in place, we could redefine the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations. Alternatively, if we want to start from the construct of Service Members vs. General Members, we could accomplish largely the same thing by removing the 1-year waiting period before Service Members can apply to become General Members.?



If the goal is to prevent "poorly informed single-issue voters dropping by for an outrage election and overwhelming the votes of the folks who've stayed well informed and participated over time" (as Bill Herrin put it), perhaps we could accomplish that simply by having the voter registration deadline (to apply to be a General Member, or to provide a Voting Contact, respectively) be something like the date of the opening of the Call for Nominations.




-Scott



?



On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Scott Leibrand <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:



Can you point me to the language that makes end users into general members under the new fee schedule?



Scott




On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <mailto:owen at delong.com> wrote:



?







On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:



?

I am generally in support of these changes,?because they would allow people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate and vote in ARIN elections.






No, the fee structure change brings that about.?



These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to disenfranchise those who don?t vote in 3 consecutive elections.?



Owen





Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a?couple of typos in both places where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".



In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the nomination period."



In?Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled position serves for the entire term?or just the first year (as with appointed vacancies).



-Scott




On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <mailto:jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

Alan - 
 
 Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year.? ?We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election. 
 
 FYI,
 /John
 
 John Curran
 President and CEO
 American Registry for Internet Numbers
 
 
 > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <mailto:alan at peak.org> wrote:
 > 
 > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
 >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
 >> 
 >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
 >> 
 >> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/
 > 
 > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
 > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
 > Service and General members)?
 > 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > ARIN-Consult
 > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
 > List (mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net).
 > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
 > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
 > Help Desk at mailto:info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
 
 _______________________________________________
 ARIN-Consult
 You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
 List (mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net).
 Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
 https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
 Help Desk at mailto:info at arin.net if you experience any issues.


_______________________________________________

ARIN-Consult

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing

List (mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net).

Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:

https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services

Help Desk at mailto:info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

















_______________________________________________

ARIN-Consult 

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing 

List (mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net). 

Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: 

https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services 

Help Desk at mailto:info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211106/ddb563dd/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Sat Nov  6 11:17:18 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2021 08:17:18 -0700
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <552AD8F3-0257-4CF0-94DE-402406D6A9AB@delong.com>



> On Nov 5, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS) (and considerably better than the current state, where only ISPs vote).

The proposal doesn?t prevent the petition threshold from increasing unless it successfully disenfranchises a significant fraction of member organizations.

> But we could accomplish similar goals more simply, for example by just redefining the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations.

Personally, I?d rather see the petition threshold set similar to the petition thresholds in the PDP. Something like 30 unique individuals from 30 unique organizations would be fine IMHO.

Further, even if we are going to create an enfranchised and a disenfranchised class of members, I?d prefer to see that disenfranchisement apply only to actual voting. The nomination process, petition process, etc. should remain open to all members (ideally all member POCs, not just the voting POC).

> More detailed response inline below.
> 
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:49 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> By forcing everyone from the old fees to the ?Registration Services Plan?, they get membership automatically just like anyone else on an RSP.
> 
> Ok, yes: after a more careful reading, I agree that the 2022 fee structure and the current membership guidelines would interact to produce a situation where ARIN approximately doubles its current membership. And I agree we should be comparing the proposed changes both to the "do nothing" alternative as well as to the current state. 
> 
> Without these (or some other) changes, the "do nothing" alternative would result in the petition threshold being raised from the current 124 ("two-percent of eligible General Members in Good Standing") to about 250 (with a corresponding increase in the number of organizations eligible to sign such petitions).

Agreed. I?m not advocating for ?do nothing?, but I am advocating for ?do something different?.

> This proposal under consultation would prune inactive members (who haven't voted 3 years in a row) from the voter rolls, and require them to re-register to be able to vote again. In doing so, it would reduce the count of eligible-to-vote organizations (General Members in Good Standing) considerably, most likely well below 6200, thereby reducing the petition threshold (while selectively decreasing the organizations eligible to sign petitions by removing those least likely to be paying attention and interested in doing so) below the current level, and likely down to the minimum of 100. That would have the net effect of making petitions slightly easier than they are now.

It would also automatically and immediately disenfranchise all of the end user organizations being coerced into higher fees and membership unless they took specific proactive measures to cancel that disenfranchisement.

In the case of those that were entitled to, but haven?t voted in the three previous there?s a somewhat valid point. In the case of those that didn?t previously have membership and are being coerced into paying for membership, I think that voting rights should be opt-out, not opt-in at the least. New members should default to having voting rights. If they don?t vote for 3 years, I could live with taking them off the voting roles (it still doesn?t sit well with me, but I?d accept that as valid evidence they didn?t care). But defaulting to ?we forced you to be a member, but we?re not going to let you vote unless you reach out and demand your rights? strikes me as less than honorable.

> As noted above, I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS).

I agree slightly better, but on the same level that Syphilis is slightly better than AIDS. There are better alternatives than the proposed changes or doing nothing. There is no reason to limit ourselves to those two choices.

> Another less restrictive alternative would be to continue to allow individual organizations to decide for themselves whether to receive election information and be eligible to participate in elections via the current mechanism: "designating a Voting Contact and keeping that information up-to-date is a crucial responsibility of each ARIN Member. Without updated Voting Contact information, a member organization loses the ability to vote in annual ARIN Elections" (https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/>). If that remains in place, we could redefine the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations. Alternatively, if we want to start from the construct of Service Members vs. General Members, we could accomplish largely the same thing by removing the 1-year waiting period before Service Members can apply to become General Members. 

I?d be fine with this.

> If the goal is to prevent "poorly informed single-issue voters dropping by for an outrage election and overwhelming the votes of the folks who've stayed well informed and participated over time" (as Bill Herrin put it), perhaps we could accomplish that simply by having the voter registration deadline (to apply to be a General Member, or to provide a Voting Contact, respectively) be something like the date of the opening of the Call for Nominations.

I guess it depends on what people are outraged about. Personally, I think that if ARIN has managed to outrage that many existing members, perhaps such a protection is not such a good thing. In fact, I?d much rather have existing members doing single-issue outrage voting than have agenda-based org creation (which would still be possible, albeit expensive) swamp the vote. (@$250 per org, creating 400+ ORGs (which would currently do the trick, but post fee
structure change who knows?) is $100,000).

Nonetheless, while I?m not big on disenfranchising voters through any mechanism, my biggest concern here is defaulting existing organizations that are coerced into membership into the disenfranchised category from day 1 while continuing to default new organizations into the enfranchised category on the same basis. It feels asymmetric and unfair to me.

Owen

> 
> -Scott
>  
> 
>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Can you point me to the language that makes end users into general members under the new fee schedule?
>> 
>> Scott
>> 
>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ?
>>>> I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate and vote in ARIN elections.
>>> 
>>> No, the fee structure change brings that about. 
>>> 
>>> These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to disenfranchise those who don?t vote in 3 consecutive elections. 
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".
>>>> 
>>>> In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the nomination period."
>>>> 
>>>> In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with appointed vacancies).
>>>> 
>>>> -Scott
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>>>> Alan - 
>>>> 
>>>> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election. 
>>>> 
>>>> FYI,
>>>> /John
>>>> 
>>>> John Curran
>>>> President and CEO
>>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <alan at peak.org <mailto:alan at peak.org>> wrote:
>>>> > 
>>>> > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>>> >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
>>>> >> 
>>>> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/>
>>>> > 
>>>> > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
>>>> > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
>>>> > Service and General members)?
>>>> > 
>>>> > 
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > ARIN-Consult
>>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>>> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>>> > Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ARIN-Consult
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ARIN-Consult
>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211106/9877489e/attachment.htm>

From paul at arin.net  Sat Nov  6 11:32:25 2021
From: paul at arin.net (Paul Andersen - ARIN)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2021 10:32:25 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C386FBDB-50E4-4E9F-A742-6F9F676E2647@arin.net>

Scott,

I think the organization benefits when the member counts we reference reflect those who wish to be active in ARIN governance since we need to look at things like quorum and the  total member count impacts various thresholds throughout our Governance. 

The concept was to try and keep a very simple action to indicate a desire to stay a member. As pointed out at Open Mic in MSP a minor amendment under consideration is to allow a member to go to the voting ballot and indicate they do not wish to pick any candidates - the mechanics and terminology not yet worked out - but still be counted as active. 

Having said that ? open to better mousetraps. The current solution was just seen as a clean implementation within ARIN systems.

P.


> On Nov 6, 2021, at 12:48 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This proposal under consultation would prune inactive members (who haven't voted 3 years in a row) from the voter rolls, and require them to re-register to be able to vote again. In doing so, it would reduce the count of eligible-to-vote organizations (General Members in Good Standing) considerably, most likely well below 6200, thereby reducing the petition threshold (while selectively decreasing the organizations eligible to sign petitions by removing those least likely to be paying attention and interested in doing so) below the current level, and likely down to the minimum of 100. That would have the net effect of making petitions slightly easier than they are now.



From mike at iptrading.com  Sat Nov  6 11:35:35 2021
From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns)
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2021 11:35:35 -0400
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <C386FBDB-50E4-4E9F-A742-6F9F676E2647@arin.net>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C386FBDB-50E4-4E9F-A742-6F9F676E2647@arin.net>
Message-ID: <17cf5e40a29.10c7e5f27495689.71464474478433666@iptrading.com>

+1 to the idea of voting "present" to maintain voting rights.








---- On Sat, 06 Nov 2021 11:32:25 -0400 Paul Andersen - ARIN <paul at arin.net> wrote ----


Scott,

I think the organization benefits when the member counts we reference reflect those who wish to be active in ARIN governance since we need to look at things like quorum and the  total member count impacts various thresholds throughout our Governance. 

The concept was to try and keep a very simple action to indicate a desire to stay a member. As pointed out at Open Mic in MSP a minor amendment under consideration is to allow a member to go to the voting ballot and indicate they do not wish to pick any candidates - the mechanics and terminology not yet worked out - but still be counted as active. 

Having said that ? open to better mousetraps. The current solution was just seen as a clean implementation within ARIN systems.

P.


> On Nov 6, 2021, at 12:48 AM, Scott Leibrand <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This proposal under consultation would prune inactive members (who haven't voted 3 years in a row) from the voter rolls, and require them to re-register to be able to vote again. In doing so, it would reduce the count of eligible-to-vote organizations (General Members in Good Standing) considerably, most likely well below 6200, thereby reducing the petition threshold (while selectively decreasing the organizations eligible to sign petitions by removing those least likely to be paying attention and interested in doing so) below the current level, and likely down to the minimum of 100. That would have the net effect of making petitions slightly easier than they are now.

_______________________________________________
ARIN-Consult
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
List (mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
Help Desk at mailto:info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211106/898384e3/attachment.htm>

From paul at arin.net  Sat Nov  6 11:39:14 2021
From: paul at arin.net (Paul Andersen - ARIN)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2021 10:39:14 -0500
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1685.1636211864.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <mailman.1685.1636211864.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
Message-ID: <6FAA0E34-BC53-4DB9-9CF2-5A1F559B025B@arin.net>


We have no data on how many end users will actively participate in ARIN processes. So come January 1st if we opt-in that would immediately *raise* the actual number of members required to hit a percentage based threshold without any idea how many are interested in participating in this. That seems like potential disenfranchisement to me. 

End users are going to be able to go through a very simple request process (which I believe the plan is to automate as soon as possible) to switch to a General member. ARIN will be reminding people and end users have tons of time to do this before the cut off to be a general member and vote in the next election. 

I?m struggling to see the great barrier before end users who wish to switch from Service to General. I do see benefits to the General membership on not opting them in.



> On Nov 6, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Reminder - Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure
> Date: November 6, 2021 at 10:17:18 AM CDT
> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> Cc: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>, "<arin-consult at arin.net>" <arin-consult at arin.net>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS) (and considerably better than the current state, where only ISPs vote).
> 
> The proposal doesn?t prevent the petition threshold from increasing unless it successfully disenfranchises a significant fraction of member organizations.
> 
>> But we could accomplish similar goals more simply, for example by just redefining the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations.
> 
> Personally, I?d rather see the petition threshold set similar to the petition thresholds in the PDP. Something like 30 unique individuals from 30 unique organizations would be fine IMHO.
> 
> Further, even if we are going to create an enfranchised and a disenfranchised class of members, I?d prefer to see that disenfranchisement apply only to actual voting. The nomination process, petition process, etc. should remain open to all members (ideally all member POCs, not just the voting POC).
> 
>> More detailed response inline below.
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:49 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>> By forcing everyone from the old fees to the ?Registration Services Plan?, they get membership automatically just like anyone else on an RSP.
>> 
>> Ok, yes: after a more careful reading, I agree that the 2022 fee structure and the current membership guidelines would interact to produce a situation where ARIN approximately doubles its current membership. And I agree we should be comparing the proposed changes both to the "do nothing" alternative as well as to the current state. 
>> 
>> Without these (or some other) changes, the "do nothing" alternative would result in the petition threshold being raised from the current 124 ("two-percent of eligible General Members in Good Standing") to about 250 (with a corresponding increase in the number of organizations eligible to sign such petitions).
> 
> Agreed. I?m not advocating for ?do nothing?, but I am advocating for ?do something different?.
> 
>> This proposal under consultation would prune inactive members (who haven't voted 3 years in a row) from the voter rolls, and require them to re-register to be able to vote again. In doing so, it would reduce the count of eligible-to-vote organizations (General Members in Good Standing) considerably, most likely well below 6200, thereby reducing the petition threshold (while selectively decreasing the organizations eligible to sign petitions by removing those least likely to be paying attention and interested in doing so) below the current level, and likely down to the minimum of 100. That would have the net effect of making petitions slightly easier than they are now.
> 
> It would also automatically and immediately disenfranchise all of the end user organizations being coerced into higher fees and membership unless they took specific proactive measures to cancel that disenfranchisement.
> 
> In the case of those that were entitled to, but haven?t voted in the three previous there?s a somewhat valid point. In the case of those that didn?t previously have membership and are being coerced into paying for membership, I think that voting rights should be opt-out, not opt-in at the least. New members should default to having voting rights. If they don?t vote for 3 years, I could live with taking them off the voting roles (it still doesn?t sit well with me, but I?d accept that as valid evidence they didn?t care). But defaulting to ?we forced you to be a member, but we?re not going to let you vote unless you reach out and demand your rights? strikes me as less than honorable.
> 
>> As noted above, I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS).
> 
> I agree slightly better, but on the same level that Syphilis is slightly better than AIDS. There are better alternatives than the proposed changes or doing nothing. There is no reason to limit ourselves to those two choices.
> 
>> Another less restrictive alternative would be to continue to allow individual organizations to decide for themselves whether to receive election information and be eligible to participate in elections via the current mechanism: "designating a Voting Contact and keeping that information up-to-date is a crucial responsibility of each ARIN Member. Without updated Voting Contact information, a member organization loses the ability to vote in annual ARIN Elections" (https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/>). If that remains in place, we could redefine the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations. Alternatively, if we want to start from the construct of Service Members vs. General Members, we could accomplish largely the same thing by removing the 1-year waiting period before Service Members can apply to become General Members. 
> 
> I?d be fine with this.
> 
>> If the goal is to prevent "poorly informed single-issue voters dropping by for an outrage election and overwhelming the votes of the folks who've stayed well informed and participated over time" (as Bill Herrin put it), perhaps we could accomplish that simply by having the voter registration deadline (to apply to be a General Member, or to provide a Voting Contact, respectively) be something like the date of the opening of the Call for Nominations.
> 
> I guess it depends on what people are outraged about. Personally, I think that if ARIN has managed to outrage that many existing members, perhaps such a protection is not such a good thing. In fact, I?d much rather have existing members doing single-issue outrage voting than have agenda-based org creation (which would still be possible, albeit expensive) swamp the vote. (@$250 per org, creating 400+ ORGs (which would currently do the trick, but post fee
> structure change who knows?) is $100,000).
> 
> Nonetheless, while I?m not big on disenfranchising voters through any mechanism, my biggest concern here is defaulting existing organizations that are coerced into membership into the disenfranchised category from day 1 while continuing to default new organizations into the enfranchised category on the same basis. It feels asymmetric and unfair to me.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> 
>> -Scott
>>  
>> 
>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Can you point me to the language that makes end users into general members under the new fee schedule?
>>> 
>>> Scott
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?
>>>>> I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate and vote in ARIN elections.
>>>> 
>>>> No, the fee structure change brings that about. 
>>>> 
>>>> These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to disenfranchise those who don?t vote in 3 consecutive elections. 
>>>> 
>>>> Owen
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".
>>>>> 
>>>>> In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the nomination period."
>>>>> 
>>>>> In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with appointed vacancies).
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Scott
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>>>>> Alan - 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> FYI,
>>>>> /John
>>>>> 
>>>>> John Curran
>>>>> President and CEO
>>>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <alan at peak.org <mailto:alan at peak.org>> wrote:
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>>>> >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/>
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
>>>>> > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
>>>>> > Service and General members)?
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > 
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > ARIN-Consult
>>>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>>>> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>>>> > Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ARIN-Consult
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>>>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ARIN-Consult
>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>>>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211106/62217cb9/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Sat Nov  6 18:46:09 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2021 15:46:09 -0700
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <6FAA0E34-BC53-4DB9-9CF2-5A1F559B025B@arin.net>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <mailman.1685.1636211864.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <6FAA0E34-BC53-4DB9-9CF2-5A1F559B025B@arin.net>
Message-ID: <B5DFD08D-BBB1-42EE-97BA-910F6B1CD45B@delong.com>



> On Nov 6, 2021, at 8:39 AM, Paul Andersen - ARIN <paul at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> We have no data on how many end users will actively participate in ARIN processes. So come January 1st if we opt-in that would immediately *raise* the actual number of members required to hit a percentage based threshold without any idea how many are interested in participating in this. That seems like potential disenfranchisement to me.

I agree that the thresholds should be modified. I?m not convinced that percentage-based thresholds are the right answer to begin with. I?ve offered at least one alternative possibility.

> End users are going to be able to go through a very simple request process (which I believe the plan is to automate as soon as possible) to switch to a General member. ARIN will be reminding people and end users have tons of time to do this before the cut off to be a general member and vote in the next election. 

Do they? Does this include end-users who won?t renew until September or October?

> I?m struggling to see the great barrier before end users who wish to switch from Service to General. I do see benefits to the General membership on not opting them in.

It?s not a great barrier, per se, so long as each and every disenfranchised member has been through some process of verifying that they wish to be disenfranchised. What I would truly hate to see is a scenario where a bunch of disenfranchised members come out of the woodwork claiming they were not aware that they were being disenfranchised.

Hence my belief that voting rights should be inherently opt-out. ARIN should have to proactively ask each end user if they wish to be disenfranchised rather than simply waving a wand and disenfranchising them without informed consent IMHO.

Given ARIN?s historically limited ability to reliably contact end user organizations in a verifiable manner, I think that?s a valid concern.

Owen

> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 6, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net <mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Reminder - Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure
>> Date: November 6, 2021 at 10:17:18 AM CDT
>> To: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>>
>> Cc: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>, "<arin-consult at arin.net <mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>" <arin-consult at arin.net <mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS) (and considerably better than the current state, where only ISPs vote).
>> 
>> The proposal doesn?t prevent the petition threshold from increasing unless it successfully disenfranchises a significant fraction of member organizations.
>> 
>>> But we could accomplish similar goals more simply, for example by just redefining the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations.
>> 
>> Personally, I?d rather see the petition threshold set similar to the petition thresholds in the PDP. Something like 30 unique individuals from 30 unique organizations would be fine IMHO.
>> 
>> Further, even if we are going to create an enfranchised and a disenfranchised class of members, I?d prefer to see that disenfranchisement apply only to actual voting. The nomination process, petition process, etc. should remain open to all members (ideally all member POCs, not just the voting POC).
>> 
>>> More detailed response inline below.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:49 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>> By forcing everyone from the old fees to the ?Registration Services Plan?, they get membership automatically just like anyone else on an RSP.
>>> 
>>> Ok, yes: after a more careful reading, I agree that the 2022 fee structure and the current membership guidelines would interact to produce a situation where ARIN approximately doubles its current membership. And I agree we should be comparing the proposed changes both to the "do nothing" alternative as well as to the current state. 
>>> 
>>> Without these (or some other) changes, the "do nothing" alternative would result in the petition threshold being raised from the current 124 ("two-percent of eligible General Members in Good Standing") to about 250 (with a corresponding increase in the number of organizations eligible to sign such petitions).
>> 
>> Agreed. I?m not advocating for ?do nothing?, but I am advocating for ?do something different?.
>> 
>>> This proposal under consultation would prune inactive members (who haven't voted 3 years in a row) from the voter rolls, and require them to re-register to be able to vote again. In doing so, it would reduce the count of eligible-to-vote organizations (General Members in Good Standing) considerably, most likely well below 6200, thereby reducing the petition threshold (while selectively decreasing the organizations eligible to sign petitions by removing those least likely to be paying attention and interested in doing so) below the current level, and likely down to the minimum of 100. That would have the net effect of making petitions slightly easier than they are now.
>> 
>> It would also automatically and immediately disenfranchise all of the end user organizations being coerced into higher fees and membership unless they took specific proactive measures to cancel that disenfranchisement.
>> 
>> In the case of those that were entitled to, but haven?t voted in the three previous there?s a somewhat valid point. In the case of those that didn?t previously have membership and are being coerced into paying for membership, I think that voting rights should be opt-out, not opt-in at the least. New members should default to having voting rights. If they don?t vote for 3 years, I could live with taking them off the voting roles (it still doesn?t sit well with me, but I?d accept that as valid evidence they didn?t care). But defaulting to ?we forced you to be a member, but we?re not going to let you vote unless you reach out and demand your rights? strikes me as less than honorable.
>> 
>>> As noted above, I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS).
>> 
>> I agree slightly better, but on the same level that Syphilis is slightly better than AIDS. There are better alternatives than the proposed changes or doing nothing. There is no reason to limit ourselves to those two choices.
>> 
>>> Another less restrictive alternative would be to continue to allow individual organizations to decide for themselves whether to receive election information and be eligible to participate in elections via the current mechanism: "designating a Voting Contact and keeping that information up-to-date is a crucial responsibility of each ARIN Member. Without updated Voting Contact information, a member organization loses the ability to vote in annual ARIN Elections" (https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/>). If that remains in place, we could redefine the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations. Alternatively, if we want to start from the construct of Service Members vs. General Members, we could accomplish largely the same thing by removing the 1-year waiting period before Service Members can apply to become General Members. 
>> 
>> I?d be fine with this.
>> 
>>> If the goal is to prevent "poorly informed single-issue voters dropping by for an outrage election and overwhelming the votes of the folks who've stayed well informed and participated over time" (as Bill Herrin put it), perhaps we could accomplish that simply by having the voter registration deadline (to apply to be a General Member, or to provide a Voting Contact, respectively) be something like the date of the opening of the Call for Nominations.
>> 
>> I guess it depends on what people are outraged about. Personally, I think that if ARIN has managed to outrage that many existing members, perhaps such a protection is not such a good thing. In fact, I?d much rather have existing members doing single-issue outrage voting than have agenda-based org creation (which would still be possible, albeit expensive) swamp the vote. (@$250 per org, creating 400+ ORGs (which would currently do the trick, but post fee
>> structure change who knows?) is $100,000).
>> 
>> Nonetheless, while I?m not big on disenfranchising voters through any mechanism, my biggest concern here is defaulting existing organizations that are coerced into membership into the disenfranchised category from day 1 while continuing to default new organizations into the enfranchised category on the same basis. It feels asymmetric and unfair to me.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> 
>>> -Scott
>>>  
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Can you point me to the language that makes end users into general members under the new fee schedule?
>>>> 
>>>> Scott
>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ?
>>>>>> I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate and vote in ARIN elections.
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, the fee structure change brings that about. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to disenfranchise those who don?t vote in 3 consecutive elections. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Owen
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the nomination period."
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with appointed vacancies).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Scott
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>>>>>> Alan - 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> FYI,
>>>>>> /John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> John Curran
>>>>>> President and CEO
>>>>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <alan at peak.org <mailto:alan at peak.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:
>>>>>> >> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN?s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN?s membership structure for 2022.
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> The full text of the consultation is available at:
>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/ <https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/>
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not
>>>>>> > going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between
>>>>>> > Service and General members)?
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > 
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > ARIN-Consult
>>>>>> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>>>>> > List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>>>>> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>>> > https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>>>>> > Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> ARIN-Consult
>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>>>>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>>>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> ARIN-Consult
>>>>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>>>>>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>>>>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>>>>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>>>>>> Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Consult
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-consult at arin.net>).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult> Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>> Help Desk at info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211106/a7387b21/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Sat Nov  6 21:57:11 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 01:57:11 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1699.1636238774.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <mailman.1685.1636211864.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <6FAA0E34-BC53-4DB9-9CF2-5A1F559B025B@arin.net>
 <mailman.1699.1636238774.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
Message-ID: <2DE77AC3-9EFD-4E30-BE13-9FFBC7C7BD0A@arin.net>


On 6 Nov 2021, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>> wrote:

From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Reminder - Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure
Date: 6 November 2021 at 6:46:09 PM EDT
To: Paul Andersen - ARIN <paul at arin.net<mailto:paul at arin.net>>
Cc: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>>, "<arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>" <arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>
...
Given ARIN?s historically limited ability to reliably contact end user organizations in a verifiable manner, I think that?s a valid concern.

Owen

Owen -

The general case of notification of end-user organizations via obsolete contact information is a valid concern, but is in this particular case the end-user organizations will have just provided updated information (for use as their voting point of contact), so I don?t believe that reliable notification would prove to be an issue.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211107/fbe013c9/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Sun Nov  7 01:07:04 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2021 22:07:04 -0700
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <2DE77AC3-9EFD-4E30-BE13-9FFBC7C7BD0A@arin.net>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <mailman.1685.1636211864.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <6FAA0E34-BC53-4DB9-9CF2-5A1F559B025B@arin.net>
 <mailman.1699.1636238774.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <2DE77AC3-9EFD-4E30-BE13-9FFBC7C7BD0A@arin.net>
Message-ID: <9FA2D2D9-7DE4-4F89-9348-ABFCD0519D3C@delong.com>



> On Nov 6, 2021, at 6:57 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 6 Nov 2021, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net <mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Reminder - Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure
>> Date: 6 November 2021 at 6:46:09 PM EDT
>> To: Paul Andersen - ARIN <paul at arin.net <mailto:paul at arin.net>>
>> Cc: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>>, "<arin-consult at arin.net <mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>" <arin-consult at arin.net <mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>
>> ...
>> Given ARIN?s historically limited ability to reliably contact end user organizations in a verifiable manner, I think that?s a valid concern.
>> 
>> Owen
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> The general case of notification of end-user organizations via obsolete contact information is a valid concern, but is in this particular case the end-user organizations will have just provided updated information (for use as their voting point of contact), so I don?t believe that reliable notification would prove to be an issue.

Color me confused? If they?ve provided a voting contact, then they?ve responded and effectively expressed a designation of someone that they want to vote on their behalf, therefore indicating a desire to vote.

I?m talking about the case for organizations that get a renewal invoice for the new inflated fee and pay it without taking any other action, indicating that it?s not at all unlikely that
the AP department received a pre-approved bill, tossed all the additional matter from the envelope (likely including the envelope) into the round file and paid the bill, never having brought the changes to the attention of anyone who might care about anything beyond paying the bill.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211106/bee231b6/attachment.htm>

From jcurran at arin.net  Sun Nov  7 06:24:17 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 11:24:17 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <9FA2D2D9-7DE4-4F89-9348-ABFCD0519D3C@delong.com>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <mailman.1685.1636211864.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <6FAA0E34-BC53-4DB9-9CF2-5A1F559B025B@arin.net>
 <mailman.1699.1636238774.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <2DE77AC3-9EFD-4E30-BE13-9FFBC7C7BD0A@arin.net>
 <9FA2D2D9-7DE4-4F89-9348-ABFCD0519D3C@delong.com>
Message-ID: <8E4D7D0A-E30F-4BD0-B01D-76A673A9EA53@arin.net>

On 7 Nov 2021, at 1:07 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

On Nov 6, 2021, at 6:57 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:

On 6 Nov 2021, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>> wrote:

From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Reminder - Consultation on ARIN?s Membership Structure
Date: 6 November 2021 at 6:46:09 PM EDT
To: Paul Andersen - ARIN <paul at arin.net<mailto:paul at arin.net>>
Cc: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com<mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com>>, "<arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>" <arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>>
...
Given ARIN?s historically limited ability to reliably contact end user organizations in a verifiable manner, I think that?s a valid concern.

Owen

Owen -

The general case of notification of end-user organizations via obsolete contact information is a valid concern, but is in this particular case the end-user organizations will have just provided updated information (for use as their voting point of contact), so I don?t believe that reliable notification would prove to be an issue.

Color me confused? If they?ve provided a voting contact, then they?ve responded and effectively expressed a designation of someone that they want to vote on their behalf, therefore indicating a desire to vote.

That?s correct - providing a valid voting contact is indeed what an end-user organization will do in order to transition from service member to a general member (thus indicating that they wish to participate in ARIN governance matters.)   It will then be important that they participate in either the 2022 or 2023 election ? even if it is to simply to cast a blank or ?present? ballot in order to maintain their general member status.

I?m talking about the case for organizations that get a renewal invoice for the new inflated fee and pay it without taking any other action, indicating that it?s not at all unlikely that
the AP department received a pre-approved bill, tossed all the additional matter from the envelope (likely including the envelope) into the round file and paid the bill, never having brought the changes to the attention of anyone who might care about anything beyond paying the bill.

You were postulating the risk of ARIN disenfranchising end-user organizations of their general members status due to our limited ability to contact them reliably ? I was simply noting that contact difficulties are most often the result of contact information that hasn?t been updated in years, and is far less likely to be an issue for such end-user organizations as they will have recently provided current contact information in the process of becoming a general member.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211107/fa3ee365/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Sun Nov  7 10:13:04 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 07:13:04 -0800
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <8E4D7D0A-E30F-4BD0-B01D-76A673A9EA53@arin.net>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <mailman.1685.1636211864.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <6FAA0E34-BC53-4DB9-9CF2-5A1F559B025B@arin.net>
 <mailman.1699.1636238774.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <2DE77AC3-9EFD-4E30-BE13-9FFBC7C7BD0A@arin.net>
 <9FA2D2D9-7DE4-4F89-9348-ABFCD0519D3C@delong.com>
 <8E4D7D0A-E30F-4BD0-B01D-76A673A9EA53@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4AC7A951-E0D1-45B8-87CA-86DF64232DBF@delong.com>

>> I?m talking about the case for organizations that get a renewal invoice for the new inflated fee and pay it without taking any other action, indicating that it?s not at all unlikely that
>> the AP department received a pre-approved bill, tossed all the additional matter from the envelope (likely including the envelope) into the round file and paid the bill, never having brought the changes to the attention of anyone who might care about anything beyond paying the bill.
> 
> You were postulating the risk of ARIN disenfranchising end-user organizations of their general members status due to our limited ability to contact them reliably ? I was simply noting that contact difficulties are most often the result of contact information that hasn?t been updated in years, and is far less likely to be an issue for such end-user organizations as they will have recently provided current contact information in the process of becoming a general member. 

I?m talking about the auto-transition that comes up as a result of the change to the billing structure, where the current plan AIUI is to default them into the disenfranchised bucket unless they take proactive action.

I presume that end user organizations are being converted to this new billing scheme regardless of how old their contact information is, so I?m not understanding how you think this is a solved problem.

Owen



From jcurran at arin.net  Sun Nov  7 11:11:38 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 16:11:38 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <4AC7A951-E0D1-45B8-87CA-86DF64232DBF@delong.com>
References: <BF5186D0-F0E3-4CD9-AE19-553B8FBDF839@delong.com>
 <340266B3-DD5F-4C49-BC0C-071BF67CFDD1@gmail.com>
 <DEB525B1-9251-4505-A6F1-A0E4D6BEDAA4@delong.com>
 <CAGkMwz74BW+gW+ScVEf=vbBGCTamcO6L+btaJZajUpn0sXyGhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <mailman.1685.1636211864.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <6FAA0E34-BC53-4DB9-9CF2-5A1F559B025B@arin.net>
 <mailman.1699.1636238774.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <2DE77AC3-9EFD-4E30-BE13-9FFBC7C7BD0A@arin.net>
 <9FA2D2D9-7DE4-4F89-9348-ABFCD0519D3C@delong.com>
 <8E4D7D0A-E30F-4BD0-B01D-76A673A9EA53@arin.net>,
 <4AC7A951-E0D1-45B8-87CA-86DF64232DBF@delong.com>
Message-ID: <67498D6E-CA23-49E6-ACAB-AC3649FD091E@arin.net>

Owen -

Indeed correct - without setting up a voting contact, they?ll be unable to vote (?disenfranchised? as you put it.)
 
We?ll make sure that there is a fairly obviously solution available for that situation?

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

> On Nov 7, 2021, at 10:13 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> ?
>> 
>>> I?m talking about the case for organizations that get a renewal invoice for the new inflated fee and pay it without taking any other action, indicating that it?s not at all unlikely that
>>> the AP department received a pre-approved bill, tossed all the additional matter from the envelope (likely including the envelope) into the round file and paid the bill, never having brought the changes to the attention of anyone who might care about anything beyond paying the bill.
>> 
>> You were postulating the risk of ARIN disenfranchising end-user organizations of their general members status due to our limited ability to contact them reliably ? I was simply noting that contact difficulties are most often the result of contact information that hasn?t been updated in years, and is far less likely to be an issue for such end-user organizations as they will have recently provided current contact information in the process of becoming a general member. 
> 
> I?m talking about the auto-transition that comes up as a result of the change to the billing structure, where the current plan AIUI is to default them into the disenfranchised bucket unless they take proactive action.
> 
> I presume that end user organizations are being converted to this new billing scheme regardless of how old their contact information is, so I?m not understanding how you think this is a solved problem.
> 
> Owen
> 

From owen at delong.com  Sun Nov  7 11:37:34 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 08:37:34 -0800
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_[ARIN-consult]_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <67498D6E-CA23-49E6-ACAB-AC3649FD091E@arin.net>
References: <67498D6E-CA23-49E6-ACAB-AC3649FD091E@arin.net>
Message-ID: <64C16AF9-C9A9-40EB-9EEB-22853AE2DD90@delong.com>

My concern is more about making sure they are aware of the need to apply it. 

Owen


> On Nov 7, 2021, at 08:11, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> ?Owen -
> 
> Indeed correct - without setting up a voting contact, they?ll be unable to vote (?disenfranchised? as you put it.)
> 
> We?ll make sure that there is a fairly obviously solution available for that situation?
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2021, at 10:13 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ?
>>> 
>>>> I?m talking about the case for organizations that get a renewal invoice for the new inflated fee and pay it without taking any other action, indicating that it?s not at all unlikely that
>>>> the AP department received a pre-approved bill, tossed all the additional matter from the envelope (likely including the envelope) into the round file and paid the bill, never having brought the changes to the attention of anyone who might care about anything beyond paying the bill.
>>> 
>>> You were postulating the risk of ARIN disenfranchising end-user organizations of their general members status due to our limited ability to contact them reliably ? I was simply noting that contact difficulties are most often the result of contact information that hasn?t been updated in years, and is far less likely to be an issue for such end-user organizations as they will have recently provided current contact information in the process of becoming a general member. 
>> 
>> I?m talking about the auto-transition that comes up as a result of the change to the billing structure, where the current plan AIUI is to default them into the disenfranchised bucket unless they take proactive action.
>> 
>> I presume that end user organizations are being converted to this new billing scheme regardless of how old their contact information is, so I?m not understanding how you think this is a solved problem.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 



From matt at netfire.net  Mon Nov  8 10:06:59 2021
From: matt at netfire.net (Matt Harris)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 09:06:59 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>


Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead
816-256-5446|Direct
Looking for help?
Helpdesk|Email Support
We build customized end-to-end technology solutions powered by NetFire Cloud.
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 5:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> Alan -
>
> Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any
> of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the
> coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each
> election starting after the ARIN 2023 election.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>

Hey John,
What's the problem that this change seeks to solve, specifically? If a
member only chooses to vote in every 4, or 5 elections, shouldn't that be
the prerogative of said member and not subject them to sanctions such as
being bumped down a category and losing the right to vote which is
generally afforded to all dues-paying members?

Open questions to others to help me see the light on why this would be
proposed...
Are there any other non-profit entities in the technology space that do
this or something similar to this which and what have their experiences
been? What benefits have they reaped from it?

How would the optics for something like this be anything but negative given
that it would almost certainly open ARIN up to criticism for being less
democratically-governed?

Thanks,
Matt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211108/6f1b896a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image642075.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14877 bytes
Desc: image642075.png
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211108/6f1b896a/attachment.png>

From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Nov  8 11:36:56 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 16:36:56 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>,
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>

Matt -

The consultation is actually about opening up ARIN?s current membership (in which only ISP?s are general members) to be _more_ inclusive by allowing the 7000+ end-user customers to be ARIN members, and even be general members if they wish (and gaining the same voting rights as the existing general members.)

One option would certainly to be have everyone just be ?general members?, but it?s fairly plain that some organizations just want registry services and have little interest in participating in ARIN governance activities (and this characterization applies to both those who are existing ISP/general members and to end-user organizations.)

These means that ARIN must walk a fine line in engaging its membership community - as Owen noted earlier, we need to make everyone aware of important events (an upcoming election, bylaw changes, etc.) but there?s a difference between ARIN notifying the community that there?s an significant governance event coming up and the ongoing community discussion of such events or even engagement on more routine governance matters.

There is no desire to create an impediment to members participating in ARIN governance - it?s actually the opposite - having a self-selected set of members who have expressed interest in ARIN governance matters will allow us to bring more things to the general members for discussion.  However, getting to that point does indeed have a cost for each general member - they will have to take a proactive measure at least once every three years to indicate that they remain interested in participating in ARIN governance.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


On Nov 8, 2021, at 10:07 AM, Matt Harris <matt at netfire.net> wrote:

?
[cid:image464166.png at 7C6A1F7D.BDF9F551]
Matt Harris?
|
        Infrastructure Lead


816?256?5446
|
        Direct






Looking for help?
Helpdesk<https://help.netfire.net/>
|
        Email Support<mailto:help at netfire.net>


[https://netfire.net/Flag-United-States-of-America.jpg]
We build customized end?to?end technology solutions powered by NetFire Cloud.






On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 5:33 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
Alan -

Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year.   We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Hey John,
What's the problem that this change seeks to solve, specifically? If a member only chooses to vote in every 4, or 5 elections, shouldn't that be the prerogative of said member and not subject them to sanctions such as being bumped down a category and losing the right to vote which is generally afforded to all dues-paying members?

Open questions to others to help me see the light on why this would be proposed...
Are there any other non-profit entities in the technology space that do this or something similar to this which and what have their experiences been? What benefits have they reaped from it?

How would the optics for something like this be anything but negative given that it would almost certainly open ARIN up to criticism for being less democratically-governed?

Thanks,
Matt

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211108/31fc5970/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image464166.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14877 bytes
Desc: image464166.png
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211108/31fc5970/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image464166.png
Type: image/png
Size: 14877 bytes
Desc: image464166.png
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211108/31fc5970/attachment-0001.png>

From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Nov  8 12:01:43 2021
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:01:43 -0600
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN=2Dconsult=5D_Reminder_=2D_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau1EJqTDS21s-3RFY=+hSBz9o=kMZi7gFSDHrUSnuXcPSA@mail.gmail.com>

John,

I understand the desire, and possibly the need, to set a minimum level of
participation in the governance of ARIN for an organization to maintain
general membership status in ARIN. However, voting, including the recording
of their presence or an abstention, instead of recoding votes for
candidates, is not the only way to participate in ARIN's governance.
Sending attendees to public policy and/or member meetings, either in-person
or virtually, standing for nomination, or otherwise volunteering for
committees, are all at least as participatory in ARIN's governance as
voting, if not more in most cases.

Why are these other forms of participation excluded in favor of only voting
as a means to demonstrate an organization's participation in ARIN's
governance to maintain general membership status?

I'll note that there are other reasons than participating in ARIN's
governance to attend public policy and/or member meetings. However, I see
no harm in assuming that is at least partially the intent for the general
membership of ARIN.

Thanks.
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211108/32af5ec7/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Mon Nov  8 12:09:41 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 09:09:41 -0800
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
Message-ID: <53E53C84-B29B-4C4B-AEE7-11B374A491C6@delong.com>



> On Nov 8, 2021, at 8:36 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> Matt -
> 
> The consultation is actually about opening up ARIN?s current membership (in which only ISP?s are general members) to be _more_ inclusive by allowing the 7000+ end-user customers to be ARIN members, and even be general members if they wish (and gaining the same voting rights as the existing general members.)

No, it?s not. The fee change does that without the rules changed in the consultation.

The consultation is about disenfranchising that coming flood of new members unless they take a proactive step to opt into their new voting rights and about disenfranchising organizations that have not voted.

You can make the argument that this is a small poll tax, but it is still a form of poll tax, nonetheless.

> One option would certainly to be have everyone just be ?general members?, but it?s fairly plain that some organizations just want registry services and have little interest in participating in ARIN governance activities (and this characterization applies to both those who are existing ISP/general members and to end-user organizations.)

And what is the problem with those organizations (continuing to) abstain from voting, but retaining their rights to vote?

> These means that ARIN must walk a fine line in engaging its membership community - as Owen noted earlier, we need to make everyone aware of important events (an upcoming election, bylaw changes, etc.) but there?s a difference between ARIN notifying the community that there?s an significant governance event coming up and the ongoing community discussion of such events or even engagement on more routine governance matters.

It should be possible to do this without taking away the voting rights for those who opt out of the discussion. As a registered voter in California, I don?t lose my right to vote if I skip a few elections. Even if I go long enough for my voter registration to be expired (which IIRC is something like 10 consecutive years of non-voting), I still have the ability to re-register for the next election.

> There is no desire to create an impediment to members participating in ARIN governance - it?s actually the opposite - having a self-selected set of members who have expressed interest in ARIN governance matters will allow us to bring more things to the general members for discussion.  However, getting to that point does indeed have a cost for each general member - they will have to take a proactive measure at least once every three years to indicate that they remain interested in participating in ARIN governance.

The alternative, of course, is to let those who desire to opt out of participation be the ones required to take a proactive measure of notifying ARIN of their desire to opt out.

Once you opt out, it is not at all unreasonable to require a proactive step to opt back in,
but IMHO, no member should be disenfranchised through an automatic process.

Owen




From woody at pch.net  Mon Nov  8 12:13:16 2021
From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:13:16 +0100
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1775.1636391392.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <mailman.1775.1636391392.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
Message-ID: <4CF947E6-FDFD-4E62-89A9-2A7B6E353B5F@pch.net>



> On Nov 8, 2021, at 6:09 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net> wrote:
> What is the problem with those organizations (continuing to) abstain from voting, but retaining their rights to vote?

Quorum.  We can?t hold an election where most members don?t vote, because then the election is invalid and we have to start over.

So, we have to make sure that most members vote.  Which is already difficult.  If we have more members, it becomes even more difficult to achieve quorum.

The simplest way of fixing this would be to stop being a membership organization as a legal structure, but retain voting as a governance practice.  Had ARIN?s original founders been more clueful in the ways of non-profits, that?s how it would have been set up.  Tearing it down and building a new one correctly is possible but not trivial.

                                -Bill

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211108/fe3363ee/attachment.sig>

From rlaager at wiktel.com  Mon Nov  8 12:22:16 2021
From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 11:22:16 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1775.1636391392.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <mailman.1775.1636391392.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
Message-ID: <32a5d36f-9e8a-359f-11f3-b5fd5cd6f04a@wiktel.com>

On 11/8/21 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult wrote:
> Even if I go long enough for my voter registration to be expired (which IIRC is something like 10 consecutive years of non-voting), I still have the ability to re-register for the next election.

How is this meaningfully different from what ARIN proposes? If you go 3 
years without voting at ARIN, your "voter registration" expires, but all 
you have to do is re-register and then you can vote.

-- 
Richard


From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Nov  8 12:28:01 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:28:01 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <CAN-Dau1EJqTDS21s-3RFY=+hSBz9o=kMZi7gFSDHrUSnuXcPSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>,
 <CAN-Dau1EJqTDS21s-3RFY=+hSBz9o=kMZi7gFSDHrUSnuXcPSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9B839E96-9A90-4463-A0DF-5311DA0B092A@arin.net>

On Nov 8, 2021, at 12:02 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 
> Why are these other forms of participation excluded in favor of only voting as a means to demonstrate an organization's participation in ARIN's governance to maintain general membership status?

David - 

It?s quite possible to consider some of these other forms of participation as possible indications of an organizational decision to participate in ARIN governance, but that will need some careful study since some of these (e.g  nomination, committee participation, mailing list participation) are actually undertaken by individuals and don?t necessarily represent as clear organizational decision.

As usual, we?re open to refinements but felt it important to have the membership change available in January and hence kept the criteria quite simple.

Thanks,
/John 

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



From chris at semihuman.com  Mon Nov  8 12:55:41 2021
From: chris at semihuman.com (Chris Woodfield)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 09:55:41 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <32a5d36f-9e8a-359f-11f3-b5fd5cd6f04a@wiktel.com>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <mailman.1775.1636391392.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <32a5d36f-9e8a-359f-11f3-b5fd5cd6f04a@wiktel.com>
Message-ID: <0DE2D838-D310-4D26-8FAB-1640420383B3@semihuman.com>

If I?m reading the proposal correctly the main difference is that per the proposed rule, if you do not vote in three years, you can?t re-register for the following election, but instead have to wait a year out before re-registering interest in becoming a General Member.

In principle, I don?t disagree with the requirement for a member to proactively register their interest in voting or other participation, with a substantial deadline for this registration before that year?s election. That said, The one-year ?suspension? period for non-participation doesn?t sit will with me. 

I think a fairer system could be proposed where instead of failure to vote carries a one-year suspension of voting privileges, it could instead trigger a requirement to re-register ones intent to participate within a certain amount of time before the next year?s election. Ideally, this would be done as soon as the org?s status as a General Member is at risk, with ample opportunities for the org to re-register before the next year?s election.

-C

> On Nov 8, 2021, at 9:22 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/8/21 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult wrote:
>> Even if I go long enough for my voter registration to be expired (which IIRC is something like 10 consecutive years of non-voting), I still have the ability to re-register for the next election.
> 
> How is this meaningfully different from what ARIN proposes? If you go 3 years without voting at ARIN, your "voter registration" expires, but all you have to do is re-register and then you can vote.
> 
> -- 
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 



From jcurran at arin.net  Mon Nov  8 12:58:02 2021
From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 17:58:02 +0000
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <53E53C84-B29B-4C4B-AEE7-11B374A491C6@delong.com>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>,
 <53E53C84-B29B-4C4B-AEE7-11B374A491C6@delong.com>
Message-ID: <BE1C0CBB-CEC1-49DD-8655-EB54482EB71F@arin.net>


> On Nov 8, 2021, at 12:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
>> One option would certainly to be have everyone just be ?general members?, but it?s fairly plain that some organizations just want registry services and have little interest in participating in ARIN governance activities (and this characterization applies to both those who are existing ISP/general members and to end-user organizations.)
> 
> And what is the problem with those organizations (continuing to) abstain from voting, but retaining their rights to vote?

Owen -

There is nothing wrong with doing so - ARIN could easily have a single ?general member? category and 14000+ general members, of which 1000 to 2000 vote in elections when they wish?. It is a functional model (and any quorum matter could be addressed by setting at an appropriate value at the time the membership surges with the additional end-user members.)

It certainly suffices, but then again, it pretty much precludes ever having the general membership having increased authority over the organization ?as the ability for an bad actor to surreptitiously harvest votes from the large uninterested and otherwise uninvolved electorate is quite real.

A substantial benefit of an well-defined general membership that is that (once stable and smoothly running) it would be possible to consider taking more substantial matters of ARIN governance and putting them before that general membership. I note that when ARIN started out, all of the authority was held by the Board of Trustees (even the ability to ?elect? new Trustees) but we have with time and and stability worked to empower ARIN?s membership (e.g Election & removal of trustees, formal consultation on certain bylaws changes, approval of RSA changes). It is my own personal view that such a trend of increasingly vesting authority of the organization with the members should continue, but I do believe having a well-defined and active general membership is necessary to do so.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Nov  8 13:05:50 2021
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:05:50 -0600
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN=2Dconsult=5D_Reminder_=2D_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <9B839E96-9A90-4463-A0DF-5311DA0B092A@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <CAN-Dau1EJqTDS21s-3RFY=+hSBz9o=kMZi7gFSDHrUSnuXcPSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <9B839E96-9A90-4463-A0DF-5311DA0B092A@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau12YTcf-BRgUvBMzYE4EimWV-cFsvkHBFxn6ZZLMBG5_w@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:36 AM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On Nov 8, 2021, at 12:02 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Why are these other forms of participation excluded in favor of only
> voting as a means to demonstrate an organization's participation in ARIN's
> governance to maintain general membership status?
>
> David -
>
> It?s quite possible to consider some of these other forms of participation
> as possible indications of an organizational decision to participate in
> ARIN governance, but that will need some careful study since some of these
> (e.g  nomination, committee participation, mailing list participation) are
> actually undertaken by individuals and don?t necessarily represent as clear
> organizational decision.
>

>From this year's call for noncom volunteers, dated May 4th, 2021,
"volunteers must be from an ARIN Member organization in Good Standing." And
my recollection is, that most other calls for other committee volunteers
over the years have included similar language. I explicitly did not include
mailing list participation, because determining the member organization
relationship for each email would indeed be burdensome both for ARIN and
the participants. Further, it could potentially obstruct or limit
participation in the mailing lists, which would not be a good outcome.
Nevertheless, I would like to see governance participation beyond simply
voting to be considered.

Thanks.

As usual, we?re open to refinements but felt it important to have the
> membership change available in January and hence kept the criteria quite
> simple.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211108/7c65ef99/attachment.htm>

From farmer at umn.edu  Mon Nov  8 13:10:55 2021
From: farmer at umn.edu (David Farmer)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 12:10:55 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-Suggestions] ARIN Issues Response to ACSP 2021.15: Auto
 Renew ROAs for Hosted RPKI; Receives Three New Suggestions
In-Reply-To: <96D209F8-FD5D-41F3-B199-6800A78C8A72@arin.net>
References: <96D209F8-FD5D-41F3-B199-6800A78C8A72@arin.net>
Message-ID: <CAN-Dau3kokyBntep33tOT++j=z9c2Ddy5rFoZ2-P6VnCjnkqCQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 9:31 AM ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> On 14 September, ARIN issued its response to ACSP 2021.15: Auto Renew ROAs
> for Hosted RPKI. The suggestion and response can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/suggestions/2021/2021-15/


With the inclusion of auto-renewal in the following specification by MANRS,
it would be useful to get an updated timeline for ACSP 2021.15

https://www.manrs.org/resources/common-roa-management-requirements-and-security-standards-for-operators-of-rpki-services-ors/

It would also be helpful to know where the other items in the specification
are in ARIN's roadmap for RPKI.

Thanks

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211108/c32a4df7/attachment.htm>

From owen at delong.com  Mon Nov  8 22:50:35 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 19:50:35 -0800
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <4CF947E6-FDFD-4E62-89A9-2A7B6E353B5F@pch.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <mailman.1775.1636391392.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <4CF947E6-FDFD-4E62-89A9-2A7B6E353B5F@pch.net>
Message-ID: <DF99893D-3F46-40C9-8690-C90EB40F2435@delong.com>



> On Nov 8, 2021, at 09:13 , Bill Woodcock <woody at pch.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 8, 2021, at 6:09 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult <arin-consult at arin.net> wrote:
>> What is the problem with those organizations (continuing to) abstain from voting, but retaining their rights to vote?
> 
> Quorum.  We can?t hold an election where most members don?t vote, because then the election is invalid and we have to start over.
> 
> So, we have to make sure that most members vote.  Which is already difficult.  If we have more members, it becomes even more difficult to achieve quorum.
> 
> The simplest way of fixing this would be to stop being a membership organization as a legal structure, but retain voting as a governance practice.  Had ARIN?s original founders been more clueful in the ways of non-profits, that?s how it would have been set up.  Tearing it down and building a new one correctly is possible but not trivial.

Is quorum fixed at ?a majority? by law, or is that done by bylaws?

Obviously, if it?s a legal requirement, that?s immutable and we need to get more creative. Given the three year lag
on disenfranchising people, I have to wonder if there isn?t a likely problem even with this proposal.

OTOH, if it?s a bylaw requirement, then perhaps we set a lower quorum threshold as an alternative solution.

Owen



From owen at delong.com  Mon Nov  8 22:52:02 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 19:52:02 -0800
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <32a5d36f-9e8a-359f-11f3-b5fd5cd6f04a@wiktel.com>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <mailman.1775.1636391392.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <32a5d36f-9e8a-359f-11f3-b5fd5cd6f04a@wiktel.com>
Message-ID: <C4C33789-E2BA-4C4D-B728-5B5020C9B86F@delong.com>



> On Nov 8, 2021, at 09:22 , Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
> 
> On 11/8/21 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult wrote:
>> Even if I go long enough for my voter registration to be expired (which IIRC is something like 10 consecutive years of non-voting), I still have the ability to re-register for the next election.
> 
> How is this meaningfully different from what ARIN proposes? If you go 3 years without voting at ARIN, your "voter registration" expires, but all you have to do is re-register and then you can vote.

If I don?t vote in 2022, 2023, 2024, then I have NO WAY to get my voting privileges restored prior to 2026 as I read the proposal.

In California, if I don?t vote from 2015-2024 and lose my registration, I can still register in time for the 2025 election.

That?s a meaningful difference IMHO.

Owen

> 
> -- 
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From owen at delong.com  Mon Nov  8 22:53:33 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 19:53:33 -0800
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <0DE2D838-D310-4D26-8FAB-1640420383B3@semihuman.com>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <mailman.1775.1636391392.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <32a5d36f-9e8a-359f-11f3-b5fd5cd6f04a@wiktel.com>
 <0DE2D838-D310-4D26-8FAB-1640420383B3@semihuman.com>
Message-ID: <F73BF05B-28C1-4376-A67B-6D0D6455E264@delong.com>

What if we simply required ALL member organizations to register to vote every three years?

Owen


> On Nov 8, 2021, at 09:55 , Chris Woodfield <chris at semihuman.com> wrote:
> 
> If I?m reading the proposal correctly the main difference is that per the proposed rule, if you do not vote in three years, you can?t re-register for the following election, but instead have to wait a year out before re-registering interest in becoming a General Member.
> 
> In principle, I don?t disagree with the requirement for a member to proactively register their interest in voting or other participation, with a substantial deadline for this registration before that year?s election. That said, The one-year ?suspension? period for non-participation doesn?t sit will with me. 
> 
> I think a fairer system could be proposed where instead of failure to vote carries a one-year suspension of voting privileges, it could instead trigger a requirement to re-register ones intent to participate within a certain amount of time before the next year?s election. Ideally, this would be done as soon as the org?s status as a General Member is at risk, with ample opportunities for the org to re-register before the next year?s election.
> 
> -C
> 
>> On Nov 8, 2021, at 9:22 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On 11/8/21 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult wrote:
>>> Even if I go long enough for my voter registration to be expired (which IIRC is something like 10 consecutive years of non-voting), I still have the ability to re-register for the next election.
>> 
>> How is this meaningfully different from what ARIN proposes? If you go 3 years without voting at ARIN, your "voter registration" expires, but all you have to do is re-register and then you can vote.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Richard
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-Consult
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
>> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
>> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Consult
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing
> List (ARIN-consult at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult Please contact the ARIN Member Services
> Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.



From owen at delong.com  Mon Nov  8 23:00:10 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2021 20:00:10 -0800
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <BE1C0CBB-CEC1-49DD-8655-EB54482EB71F@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <53E53C84-B29B-4C4B-AEE7-11B374A491C6@delong.com>
 <BE1C0CBB-CEC1-49DD-8655-EB54482EB71F@arin.net>
Message-ID: <3A43C5AB-F706-4DE4-9FCA-F1E7AB4D4619@delong.com>



> On Nov 8, 2021, at 09:58 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 8, 2021, at 12:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> One option would certainly to be have everyone just be ?general members?, but it?s fairly plain that some organizations just want registry services and have little interest in participating in ARIN governance activities (and this characterization applies to both those who are existing ISP/general members and to end-user organizations.)
>> 
>> And what is the problem with those organizations (continuing to) abstain from voting, but retaining their rights to vote?
> 
> Owen -
> 
> There is nothing wrong with doing so - ARIN could easily have a single ?general member? category and 14000+ general members, of which 1000 to 2000 vote in elections when they wish?. It is a functional model (and any quorum matter could be addressed by setting at an appropriate value at the time the membership surges with the additional end-user members.)
> 
> It certainly suffices, but then again, it pretty much precludes ever having the general membership having increased authority over the organization ?as the ability for an bad actor to surreptitiously harvest votes from the large uninterested and otherwise uninvolved electorate is quite real.
> 
> A substantial benefit of an well-defined general membership that is that (once stable and smoothly running) it would be possible to consider taking more substantial matters of ARIN governance and putting them before that general membership. I note that when ARIN started out, all of the authority was held by the Board of Trustees (even the ability to ?elect? new Trustees) but we have with time and and stability worked to empower ARIN?s membership (e.g Election & removal of trustees, formal consultation on certain bylaws changes, approval of RSA changes). It is my own personal view that such a trend of increasingly vesting authority of the organization with the members should continue, but I do believe having a well-defined and active general membership is necessary to do so.

That?s fair. I think we still get there if we make general membership for end-user organizations forced into membership the default. Sure, it might take 3 years, but we do still get there.

I also think that the requirement to sit out a year after you don?t vote for 3 should be removed. An organization which becomes a ?service member? should be able to convert to ?general member? at any time that a new member joining the organization would still be able to appoint a voting contact for the current year.

So if the current proposal were modified such that:
	1.	Default category for members (new and existing) is general member until they fail to vote 3 times in a row.
	2.	A service member may convert to general member at any time, but eligibility to vote is still subject to the
		existing determination deadlines (IOW, you can?t convert in late September and expect to vote in October,
		but if you become a service member in March, you should be able to convert to general member in July
		and still vote in October. Simlilarly, if you become a service member following an October election, you
		should be able to convert back to general membership and vote in the next election, so long as you do
		so prior to the cutoff date for voter eligibility in that election).

With those two modifications, I would consider the proposal acceptable. Without them, I still feel that it is overzealous in its efforts to disenfranchise members.

Owen



From rlaager at wiktel.com  Tue Nov  9 01:38:07 2021
From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 00:38:07 -0600
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
 =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1812.1636430413.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <53E53C84-B29B-4C4B-AEE7-11B374A491C6@delong.com>
 <BE1C0CBB-CEC1-49DD-8655-EB54482EB71F@arin.net>
 <mailman.1812.1636430413.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
Message-ID: <df79c027-0eb0-d7e7-b80e-a8c0f35fde6e@wiktel.com>

On 11/8/21 9:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If I don?t vote in 2022, 2023, 2024, then I have NO WAY to get my
> voting privileges restored prior to 2026 as I read the proposal.

I didn't see that. To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I 
didn't notice that. I assumed one could vote in 2025.

That seems undesirable. I'm not sure what the thinking is there.

On 11/8/21 10:00 PM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult wrote:
> I also think that the requirement to sit out a year after you don?t vote for 3 should be removed. An organization which becomes a ?service member? should be able to convert to ?general member? at any time that a new member joining the organization would still be able to appoint a voting contact for the current year.

I agree with this.

> So if the current proposal were modified such that:
> 	1.	Default category for members (new and existing) is general member until they fail to vote 3 times in a row.

I disagree with changing all the not-previously-members into general 
members. That will immediately inflate the number of voting members only 
to have it drop back down dramatically in 3 years. That is, I agree with 
ARIN's proposal to let it be opt-in. As long as they can convert 
trivially and without undue time restrictions, I don't see the problem.

-- 
Richard


From bill at herrin.us  Tue Nov  9 11:06:17 2021
From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 08:06:17 -0800
Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARIN?=
	=?utf-8?q?=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <df79c027-0eb0-d7e7-b80e-a8c0f35fde6e@wiktel.com>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <53E53C84-B29B-4C4B-AEE7-11B374A491C6@delong.com>
 <BE1C0CBB-CEC1-49DD-8655-EB54482EB71F@arin.net>
 <mailman.1812.1636430413.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <df79c027-0eb0-d7e7-b80e-a8c0f35fde6e@wiktel.com>
Message-ID: <CAP-guGWUDeU+z1uyPr1eyHCtX2OUO-T9yMxbARkrZwmEXjbhBw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 10:38 PM Richard Laager <rlaager at wiktel.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/21 9:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > If I don?t vote in 2022, 2023, 2024, then I have NO WAY to get my
> > voting privileges restored prior to 2026 as I read the proposal.
>
> I didn't see that. To be clear, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I
> didn't notice that. I assumed one could vote in 2025.

Hi Richard,

I read it Owen's way as well: once out, you have to register a year or
so before you can vote. No "same-day" registrations.


> That seems undesirable. I'm not sure what the thinking is there.

John explained: they want to limit "the ability for an bad actor to
surreptitiously harvest votes from the large uninterested and
otherwise uninvolved electorate." A lengthy waiting period between
registration and eligibility to vote does that.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/


From gert at space.net  Tue Nov  9 13:05:20 2021
From: gert at space.net (Gert Doering)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 19:05:20 +0100
Subject: [ARIN-consult] Reminder - Consultation on ARIN???s Membership
 Structure
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGWUDeU+z1uyPr1eyHCtX2OUO-T9yMxbARkrZwmEXjbhBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <53E53C84-B29B-4C4B-AEE7-11B374A491C6@delong.com>
 <BE1C0CBB-CEC1-49DD-8655-EB54482EB71F@arin.net>
 <mailman.1812.1636430413.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <df79c027-0eb0-d7e7-b80e-a8c0f35fde6e@wiktel.com>
 <CAP-guGWUDeU+z1uyPr1eyHCtX2OUO-T9yMxbARkrZwmEXjbhBw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <YYq4YPi9SiXcnPCA@Space.Net>

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 08:06:17AM -0800, William Herrin wrote:
> > That seems undesirable. I'm not sure what the thinking is there.
> 
> John explained: they want to limit "the ability for an bad actor to
> surreptitiously harvest votes from the large uninterested and
> otherwise uninvolved electorate."

Which "disenfranchise" nicely summarizes - "they have no clue, they
are largely unwashed masses, why should they be able to vote on 
anything important".

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279


From owen at delong.com  Tue Nov  9 13:57:10 2021
From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2021 10:57:10 -0800
Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re=3A_=5BARIN-consult=5D_Reminder_-_Consultation_on_ARI?=
 =?utf-8?Q?N=E2=80=99s_Membership_Structure?=
In-Reply-To: <df79c027-0eb0-d7e7-b80e-a8c0f35fde6e@wiktel.com>
References: <2280D7AD-2CF0-44D0-9064-6A8DEF475308@arin.net>
 <cee40cc1-d3de-27f4-084a-bfb7023d1089@peak.org>
 <EAC20C5F-8CDF-416E-9852-A4EDEABAE080@arin.net>
 <CAHdm837QWpTF6Uhn1eCWZAQRZj0DhTOBpr9d3vQBfihrcDXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <23AF9B75-E5DD-44D0-A5E2-6E64897A08FF@arin.net>
 <53E53C84-B29B-4C4B-AEE7-11B374A491C6@delong.com>
 <BE1C0CBB-CEC1-49DD-8655-EB54482EB71F@arin.net>
 <mailman.1812.1636430413.22078.arin-consult@arin.net>
 <df79c027-0eb0-d7e7-b80e-a8c0f35fde6e@wiktel.com>
Message-ID: <22DD6A40-9BEC-4FD1-962B-3401DBE0E086@delong.com>


>> So if the current proposal were modified such that:
>> 	1.	Default category for members (new and existing) is general member until they fail to vote 3 times in a row.
> 
> I disagree with changing all the not-previously-members into general members. That will immediately inflate the number of voting members only to have it drop back down dramatically in 3 years. That is, I agree with ARIN's proposal to let it be opt-in. As long as they can convert trivially and without undue time restrictions, I don't see the problem.

The problem is the high probability of organizations that have not well maintained their contact information paying
the higher fee and not being aware that they have the option of opting in until they have been opted out.

Owen