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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Oct 30, 2021, at 16:00 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> On 30 Oct 2021, at 5:22 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Presently it is only general members that are allowed to make nominations or support petitions - we have bylaw language that makes it so, and those who want to participate in ARIN governance should avail themselves of the ability to become general members – doubly so if they believe that may wish to make a nomination or participate in a petition. 

The point of my statement above is that I believe this should change if we are to proceed with the current proposed bylaw update.

I’m well aware of the present rules, but you (and the board) have proposed changes to those rules. If we are to adopt them, then
it is my opinion that eligibility to make nominations and sign petitions should be expanded as a safety valve against some of the
likely (hopefully unintended) consequences that I foresee from the proposed change.

So, yes, your description of the current rules is accurate, but since what we are talking about in this thread is a proposal to
change those rules, I’m proposing additional changes that I think are necessary to make the proposal a little less unpalatable.

Specifically, I propose that if we are going to make this change, we should:
	1.	Allow ANY validated person POC from ANY member organization to submit a nomination.
	2.	Allow ANY validated person POC from ANY member organization to act as signatory to a petition.

If we adopt those two changes (which I would, frankly, support with or without the current proposal), then to preserve
the integrity of the petition process, we should further require the signatories to be different individuals from different
organizations.

I would further support setting the petition threshold at a (lower) fixed number and eliminating the percentage requirement.
As a straw-man, I propose 30, but I would be open to a number as high as 75 or as low as 20.

Under the current (and under the boards proposal), the threshold to get a nomination by petition is currently higher than
the sum of the thresholds required to move a policy from zero to a request for board ratification (10 to get draft policy
status, 15 to get recommended draft status, 20 to get to last call and then 25 to get to the board for a total of 70
required signatures from zero to last call, and each required group may include members of the prior group).

Since we’re talking about a petition to be allowed onto the slate of candidates, not a petition to be seated in an
elected body, I really don’t seen a need to limit participation so narrowly.

>> 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.
> 
> We cannot penalize organizations that happen to have the same individual as voting contact (by not allowing their ballot to be counted as support of a petitioner), so it would be more useful to understand the lowest reasonable petition threshold under such circumstances – do you feel that the value 100 as specified in the proposed bylaw change is too high?

Nor would I want to. I believe I have clarified my intent above in a way that should obviate this concern.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20211031/990177a0/attachment.htm>