[ARIN-consult] ARIN-consult Digest, Vol 84, Issue 19

Marty Howard marty at litewire.net
Tue Nov 2 07:52:55 EDT 2021 

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:     [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]     [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-0001.htm>

More information about the ARIN-consult mailing list