Re: [ARIN-consult] [arin-announce] ACSP Consultation 2021.5: Consultation on ARIN’s Membership Structure

[Owen DeLong]

> On Oct 29, 2021, at 03:26 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> On 29 Oct 2021, at 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong <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.

While I admit my perspective may be jaded by the fact that I oppose the entire concept of service members,
if you must disenfranchise voters at the ballot box, I don’t think that disenfranchisement needs to preclude
them from the nominating or petition process.

Personally, I still think that the petition threshold is higher than it should be. Frankly, I’d be fine with a flat 30 signatories
from 30 different individuals representing 30 separate member organizations as a valid petition threshold.

>> 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. 

A desire not to be bothered with it isn’t something ARIN should be enforcing upon them. I see no valid reason an organization that doesn’t want to be bothered shouldn’t be allowed to change that decision at will.

> 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.

Which doesn’t sound overly burdensome, but strikes me as an entirely unnecessary concept.

> 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.) 

I think you are making my point… the petition process should be more open in the future, not less. I’m not saying that the current process is entirely OK. I’m saying that we need a more open process than today, not less.

Owen