From info at arin.net Tue Feb 8 10:10:39 2022 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2022 10:10:39 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] =?utf-8?q?ACSP_Consultation_2022=2E1_=E2=80=94_Co?= =?utf-8?q?mmunity_Consultation_on_Implementing_Single_Transferrable_Votin?= =?utf-8?q?g_for_ARIN_Elections?= Message-ID: <1F4E3451-E64A-41A6-BC01-E22F2E95DF0A@arin.net> ARIN thanks those who provided valuable feedback during this consultation implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN elections. This important feedback will be provided to the Board for their consideration. Regards, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From owen at delong.com Thu Feb 10 15:45:40 2022 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:45:40 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections In-Reply-To: <60E693A2-4EAB-4A4B-B55B-3DD231343B7D@jorhett.com> References:

<09C52EF7-DA66-4C0B-9E7F-CC604E862FB7@delong.com> <341ACC8E-CC92-4DE7-B721-A37AF2656B8D@arin.net>

<2e0f990c-aaef-a4d5-8b5d-560ea0ab7d10@quark.net> <58504D7D-D2BE-4A02-BCBF-E0B89B3AA6CF@delong.com> <60E693A2-4EAB-4A4B-B55B-3DD231343B7D@jorhett.com> Message-ID: > On Jan 26, 2022, at 13:46 , Jo Rhett wrote: > >> I would accept ?Has no business affiliation with? or ?Is not an authorized agent of? or other similar language > > I think ?an authorized agent? is key. There are many people with affiliations or who are even employees that a business may not desire to vote on their behalf. > Sure, but in such a case, isn?t it safe to presume that said organization would not make them the Designated Voting Contact in such a case? Owen From bill at herrin.us Thu Feb 10 15:59:33 2022 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:59:33 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections In-Reply-To: <2FCA5AFC-4D90-4E61-8F07-067034783156@arin.net> References: <2FCA5AFC-4D90-4E61-8F07-067034783156@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:38 AM ARIN wrote: > One recommendation that has arisen from this governance review is to replace the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system with single transferrable voting (STV), also known as ranked-choice voting. STV would provide the ability for the community to realize the following primary benefits: Hello, Since the consultation is coming to a close, I want to take a moment to reiterate: I respectfully OPPOSE a transition to STV voting due to the demonstrated mathematical flaws in the process. STV as proposed in the consultation can lead to unexpected and undesirable results including: * defeat of the plurality candidate who got the most votes * election of a candidate opposed by a clear majority of voters It can reach these undesired results because the math involved in the instant-runoff process amplifies the impact of some votes while effectively nullifying others. I went through the math back in my early January posts if you want to see how that happens. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill at herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ From owen at delong.com Thu Feb 10 17:02:17 2022 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 14:02:17 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections In-Reply-To: References: <2FCA5AFC-4D90-4E61-8F07-067034783156@arin.net> Message-ID: > On Feb 10, 2022, at 12:59 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:38 AM ARIN wrote: >> One recommendation that has arisen from this governance review is to replace the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system with single transferrable voting (STV), also known as ranked-choice voting. STV would provide the ability for the community to realize the following primary benefits: > > > Hello, > > Since the consultation is coming to a close, I want to take a moment > to reiterate: > > I respectfully OPPOSE a transition to STV voting due to the > demonstrated mathematical flaws in the process. > > STV as proposed in the consultation can lead to unexpected and > undesirable results including: > * defeat of the plurality candidate who got the most votes > * election of a candidate opposed by a clear majority of voters > > It can reach these undesired results because the math involved in the > instant-runoff process amplifies the impact of some votes while > effectively nullifying others. I went through the math back in my > early January posts if you want to see how that happens. Since we are reiterating here? I will reiterate my support for the transition to STV. The examples Bill cited of how the math can go awry are woefully tortured. Further, he puts quite a bit of inference of voter intent into his conclusions that may differ from actual voter intent. Owen From athompso at athompso.net Thu Feb 10 18:01:53 2022 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 23:01:53 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections In-Reply-To: References:

<09C52EF7-DA66-4C0B-9E7F-CC604E862FB7@delong.com> <341ACC8E-CC92-4DE7-B721-A37AF2656B8D@arin.net>

<2e0f990c-aaef-a4d5-8b5d-560ea0ab7d10@quark.net> <58504D7D-D2BE-4A02-BCBF-E0B89B3AA6CF@delong.com> <60E693A2-4EAB-4A4B-B55B-3DD231343B7D@jorhett.com> Message-ID: Throwing this thought out: what if everyone CAN vote (unlike what ARIN's doing with the 1.5-tier system right now, which I think is... not great), BUT an authorized user or contact must re-designate the voting contact every year? Certainly doesn't eliminate all possibilities for fraud, but could reduce some of the ways people think this is being abused today? -Adam -----Original Message----- From: ARIN-consult On Behalf Of Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 2:46 PM To: Jo Rhett Cc: arin-consult at arin.net Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections > On Jan 26, 2022, at 13:46 , Jo Rhett wrote: > >> I would accept ?Has no business affiliation with? or ?Is not an authorized agent of? or other similar language > > I think ?an authorized agent? is key. There are many people with affiliations or who are even employees that a business may not desire to vote on their behalf. > Sure, but in such a case, isn?t it safe to presume that said organization would not make them the Designated Voting Contact in such a case? Owen _______________________________________________ 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 geek at jorhett.com Thu Feb 10 19:04:25 2022 From: geek at jorhett.com (Jo Rhett) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 16:04:25 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections In-Reply-To: References: <2FCA5AFC-4D90-4E61-8F07-067034783156@arin.net> Message-ID: <853656CD-AE54-4B86-8419-BF1FE19A681B@jorhett.com> > STV as proposed in the consultation can lead to unexpected and > undesirable results including: > * defeat of the plurality candidate who got the most votes Defeat of one who got the most votes in the first count, but does not have a clear majority of voters behind them > * election of a candidate opposed by a clear majority of voters no, that flaw is owned exclusively by standard voting. It is not possible for a candidate who is opposed by 51% of voters to win an election with STV > It can reach these undesired results because the math involved in the instant-runoff process is misunderstood by you ;-) > amplifies the impact of some votes while effectively nullifying others. Any one vote which opposes any other vote effectively nullifys them. You made that case yourself in your "proofs" and then claimed the opposite. > I went through the math back in my early January posts if you want to see how that happens. You made a lot of statements your own "math" doesn't justify, and you repeated lots of claims made by opponents of STV in California who have been proven wrong by more than a decade of data. STV is well-proven, peer-reviewed, and consistently produces the actual will of the voting populace time and again. -- Jo Rhett -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at herrin.us Thu Feb 10 19:07:32 2022 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 16:07:32 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections In-Reply-To: References: <2FCA5AFC-4D90-4E61-8F07-067034783156@arin.net>

Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:02 PM Jo Rhett wrote: > STV as proposed in the consultation can lead to unexpected and > undesirable results including: > * election of a candidate opposed by a clear majority of voters > > no, that flaw is owned exclusively by standard voting. It is not possible for a candidate who is opposed by 51% of voters to win an election with STV Argue with the math. I demonstrated it happening right here: https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/2022-January/001507.html. Candidate 4 was ranked -last- by 65.5% of the voters yet STV elected him. -Bill -- William Herrin bill at herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ From athompso at athompso.net Thu Feb 10 19:19:18 2022 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 00:19:18 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections In-Reply-To: References: <2FCA5AFC-4D90-4E61-8F07-067034783156@arin.net> Message-ID: I do not agree with Bill - I suspect we are on opposite sides of this starting from fundamental assumptions and beliefs, going right up to the implementation details and opinions about the consequences. I believe STV will be an improvement over the current process, as I believe FPP voting has much greater inherent unfairness than STV. (None of these systems are *good*, it's about which produces less bad outcomes, as far as I'm concerned.) Feel free to stop reading here. That might be best, in fact... I believe Bill's fundamental approach to elections and voting is... not compatible with my beliefs & needs. In my opinion, his two points are coloured by _his_ ideology, as is to be expected. * The defeat of a plurality candidate who got the most votes, while very much a corner case, is possible - but it is neither unexpected nor undesirable. That's a feature, not a bug. STV resembles a (hoping I remember the terminology correctly...) weighted centroid model, where enough smaller clusters can, in aggregate, successfully pull the center of the graph away from a dominant cluster. * Unless the voting system allows for both "for" and "against" votes, no-one has voted *against* any candidate at all, ever, even if that was both their thought process and their intent. That's logically equivalent to thinking you can prove a negative. If you only have choices A and B, a vote for one is *equivalent* to a vote against the other, but it is not factually a vote against anything at all. Note that I'm not necessarily opposed to being able to cast votes both for and against candidates, it could even massively increase voter turnout - I'd sure love to vote against some of the jerks who run for public office around here! STV has by now had quite a bit of real-world testing, certainly on scales far, far larger than ARIN and with - IMO again - much more "real-world" impact to the average voter; it has shown itself to *not* regularly produce the bizarre results its detractors are worried about; and it has shown to produce more balanced, less lop-sided outcomes that do not completely ignore minority groups. If you're regularly part of the majority and you're happy with the outcomes of FPP voting on a regular basis, OF COURSE you wouldn't want to switch to STV - the system is stacked in your favour. Hence why no significant _structural_ electoral reform of this sort has taken place in North America in ... well, I think it's a couple of centuries, but I'm not that confident in my knowledge of political history. Up here, we have a head of state who campaigned on a promise to abolish FPP ... 6? years ago, and has done approximately nothing about it yet - and likely won't for the reasons I just enumerated. -Adam -----Original Message----- From: ARIN-consult On Behalf Of William Herrin Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:00 PM Cc:

Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 8:38 AM ARIN wrote: > One recommendation that has arisen from this governance review is to replace the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system with single transferrable voting (STV), also known as ranked-choice voting. STV would provide the ability for the community to realize the following primary benefits: Hello, Since the consultation is coming to a close, I want to take a moment to reiterate: I respectfully OPPOSE a transition to STV voting due to the demonstrated mathematical flaws in the process. STV as proposed in the consultation can lead to unexpected and undesirable results including: * defeat of the plurality candidate who got the most votes * election of a candidate opposed by a clear majority of voters It can reach these undesired results because the math involved in the instant-runoff process amplifies the impact of some votes while effectively nullifying others. I went through the math back in my early January posts if you want to see how that happens. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill at herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ 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: From bill at herrin.us Thu Feb 10 19:58:47 2022 From: bill at herrin.us (William Herrin) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 16:58:47 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections In-Reply-To: References: <2FCA5AFC-4D90-4E61-8F07-067034783156@arin.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 4:19 PM Adam Thompson wrote: > * The defeat of a plurality candidate who got the most votes, while very much a corner case, is possible - but it is neither unexpected nor undesirable. That's a feature, not a bug. STV resembles a (hoping I remember the terminology correctly...) weighted centroid model, where enough smaller clusters can, in aggregate, successfully pull the center of the graph away from a dominant cluster. Hi Adam, I consider that a reasonable basis for claiming fairness. I'm not convinced STV reliably does that but if it does then, okay, reasonable. I'm not sure it's the right answer either but I'll agree it has a reasonable claim to fairness. > * Unless the voting system allows for both "for" and "against" votes, no-one has voted *against* any candidate at all, ever, even if that was both their thought process and their intent. That's logically equivalent to thinking you can prove a negative. Here I have to completely disagree with you. A majority ranking a candidate last offers only one credible inference: that the majority disapproves of the candidate. That's what you call Sherlock Holmes level proof - when no other explanations are reasonable, the one that remains is probably true. If a voting system is fair, you should be able to turn it upside down and get more or less same result: for STV, eliminate the candidate with the most last-rankings instead of the one with the least first-rankings, then the next one and so on until the number of candidates left is the number of posts to be filled. Try that with STV and it goes completely off the rails. > STV has by now had quite a bit of real-world testing, certainly on scales far, far larger than ARIN and with - IMO again - much more "real-world" impact to the average voter; it has shown itself to *not* regularly produce the bizarre results its detractors are worried about; and it has shown to produce more balanced, less lop-sided outcomes that do not completely ignore minority groups. STV's real world testing has primarily been with single-post elections. As far as I can tell, the math that allows the last-ranked candidate to be elected is not possible when only a single post will be filled by the candidates. ARIN elections fill -two- seats on the board from the pool of candidates. STV *as proposed for ARIN* suffers a math problem which all that "real-world testing" largely didn't test. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill at herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/ From rlaager at wiktel.com Thu Feb 10 22:43:39 2022 From: rlaager at wiktel.com (Richard Laager) Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 21:43:39 -0600 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections In-Reply-To: References: <2FCA5AFC-4D90-4E61-8F07-067034783156@arin.net>

Message-ID: On 2/10/22 18:58, William Herrin wrote: > A majority ranking a > candidate last offers only one credible inference: that the majority > disapproves of the candidate. That's not correct, at least not for a definition of "disapprove" I would use. Example: "Where should we go for lunch: A, B, or C?" Imagine I'm genuinely fine with any of those. That is to say, I approve of all of them / I don't disapprove of any. We do a quick approval vote. It turns out that everyone feels like me: all choices are acceptable to everyone. We still need a decision of which one place to go. Being voting system enthusiasts, we then quickly run an STV election (which for a single winner election is the same as IRV/RCV). This forces everyone to rank their choices from most to least preferred. The results might look like your example. If you looked at just the voting results in isolation, you would declare that the majority disapproves of the last-placed choice. But here we know that's false; there is unanimous approval of all options. It's true that the loser is the "least preferred", but that's different from "disapprove[d] of". Put differently, I'd define "disapproved of" as "would rather leave the seat empty than have that candidate" or "would rank lower than 'None of the Above'". I think what you might really care about is that STV is violating the Condorcet winner criterion. In your particular example, where STV elected 3 & 4, I agree that it did. I finally took the time to do the pairwise comparisons by hand. I showed my work below. Unless I made a mistake, the Condorcet winners are 1 & 3. That is, 1 wins every pairwise election and 3 wins every pairwise election other than with 1. Further, the Condorcet loser is 4; i.e. 4 loses every pairwise election. Also, from what I can see, this election has a strict Condorcet ranking: 1 > 3 > 2 > 5 > 4. So maybe we want to pick a system that upholds the Condorcet winner criterion. What are our choices? There are various Condorcet methods that produce single-winners. As far as I can find, there are two Condorcet methods that can be used in multiple seat elections: CPO-STV and Schulze STV. The ballots are the same between traditional STV and those methods, but the computations to find the winners are much more involved; in CPO-STV, you're calculating all possible pairs of election outcomes. However, while those systems produce what I'd argue are better results (honoring the Condorcet winner criterion), I think it's important that the voters understand how the system works so that they can trust it. When you get into systems that are so complicated that they need computers to calculate the winner, that might be the wrong trade-off in real life. And to be clear, my personal view is that traditional STV is definitely better than FPTP. ---- > Suppose you have five candidates for two positions. The votes are: > 30% 1, 3, 2, 5, 4 > 20% 3, 1, 2, 5, 4 > 19% 4, 1, 2, 5, 3 > 10.5% 2, 3, 1, 5, 4 > 10.5% 2, 4, 1, 5, 3 > 5% 5, 4, 1, 2, 3 > 5% 5, 3, 1, 2, 4 Calculate pairwise elections: 1 > 2: 30 + 20 + 19 + + 5 + 5 1 > 3: 30 + 19 + 10.5 + 5 1 > 4: 30 + 20 + + 10.5 + 5 1 > 5: 30 + 20 + 19 + 10.5 + 10.5 2 > 3: 19 + 10.5 + 10.5 + 5 2 > 4: 30 + 20 + 10.5 + 10.5 + 5 2 > 5: 30 + 20 + 19 + 10.5 + 10.5 3 > 4: 30 + 20 + 10.5 + 5 3 > 5: 30 + 20 + 10.5 4 > 5: 19 + 10.5 Sum: 1 > 2: 79 1 > 3: 64.5 1 > 4: 65.5 1 > 5: 90 2 > 3: 45 2 > 4: 76 2 > 5: 90 3 > 4: 65.5 3 > 5: 60.5 4 > 5: 29.5 Evaluate: 2 > 3 is false; flip it as 3 > 2. 4 > 5 is false; flip it as 5 > 4. 1 > 2 1 > 3 1 > 4 1 > 5 3 > 2 2 > 4 2 > 5 3 > 4 3 > 5 5 > 4 Simplify: 1 > 2345 3 > 2 2 > 45 3 > 45 5 > 4 Simplify: 1 > 2345 3 > 2 > 45 5 > 4 Simplify: 1 > 235 > 4 3 > 2 > 5 > 4 Simplify: 1 > 3 > 2 > 5 > 4 -- Richard From info at arin.net Fri Feb 11 14:37:08 2022 From: info at arin.net (ARIN) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:37:08 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process Message-ID: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> The Board of Trustees maintains authority over the scope, mission, and along with the President and Chief Executive Officer establishes ARIN?s strategic direction and fiscal oversight. The Board also has oversight authority of the nomination, appointment, and election of individuals to Board committees and similar roles. Over the past two years, as part of its fiduciary duties, the ARIN Board of Trustees (?Board?) has undertaken a review of ARIN?s governance structures, including Elections and Nominations processes. As part of this effort, an independent, outside consultant was engaged to review ARIN?s governance structures and provide recommendations. One recommendation that has arisen from this governance review is to make changes to the existing election and nomination processes. The proposed changes will ensure board independence, transparency, and impartiality. ------------- Board Guidance Letter ? The Board Guidance Letter (for each of the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Council) contains "Highly Recommended" and "Recommended" attributes and assigns a weighting to each attribute. ? The evaluation of each candidate would be tied to the degree to which each attribute was satisfied. ------------- Nomination Committee Selection ? The Nomination Committee (NomCom) has seven members in total, with the members serving staggered two-year terms to ensure continuity and succession planning. The NomCom Board members select non-board members via an open call for nominations, appointing two or three members per year to reach the total membership of seven. Up to two Advisory Council (AC) members can serve on the NomCom. ? The NomCom is chaired by a Board Member. ------------- Nominations Anyone can self-nominate by completing the questionnaire for the position sought. Nominees must reside within the ARIN region. ------------- Review of Potential Candidates ? The Nomination Committee (NomCom) would review nominees based on the Board Guidance Letter, responses to questionnaires, responses to third-party interviews (Board of Trustees only), material issues from background checks (Board of Trustees only) and the review of ARIN files, and other information available to the NomCom. ? The Board Guidance Letter defines "Highly Recommended" and "Recommended" attributes. The NomCom would classify each qualified nominee as "Well Qualified," "Qualified" or "Qualifications not Demonstrated" based on evaluation of these attributes, in a fashion like that used by the American Bar Association (ABA) Federal Judiciary process. All qualified nominees would be added to the slate as candidates for election. The reasons for classifications would be published when the slate is announced. ? The NomCom would evaluate each nominee on each weighted attribute to inform the classification process. Any nominee classified as ?Unable to Qualify? would not be added to the slate. ? Nominee questionnaires would include questions about the attributes defined in the Board Guidance Letter. ? The NomCom would report on the total number of individuals assessed for the election cycle. ------------- Background Check Process The process is outlined in ARIN?s Election Processes document (Section V(e)) and remains unchanged. ARIN?s GC and Sr. Director of HR & Administration (HR Director) will arrange for a third- party vendor to conduct background checks for selected nominees. ARIN?s GC and HR Director will review the reports for each nominee and determine if there are any material issues with their background. If any material issues are found, they will review the nature of the background issue with the nominee. If after consultation with the nominee, ARIN?s GC and HR Director still deems the issue as material, they will notify the nominee that the relevant information will be provided to the NomCom unless the nominee withdraws their candidacy. Relevant material information may include information, if any, from a former ARIN volunteer?s or former ARIN employee?s individual file. A nominee will be given the opportunity to provide a statement addressing the issue which will also be provided to the NomCom. If the nominee does not withdraw their candidacy, the relevant information including the nominee?s statement, if any, will be provided to the NomCom for consideration. ------------- Board Proposal: ARIN will make changes to the selection of the NomCom, the Nomination process, and the candidate review and rating system. The proposed changes will ensure board independence, transparency, and impartiality. ARIN seeks community feedback on these proposed changes: https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2022/2022-2/ This consultation will remain open for 15 days. An Appendix FAQ that further details the rationale for these changes and additional information is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2022/FAQAppendix_202202consult.pdf 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. Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 28 February 2022. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) From mike at iptrading.com Fri Feb 11 15:08:07 2022 From: mike at iptrading.com (Mike Burns) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:08:07 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] Response to ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process Message-ID: <015801d81f83$15cd1bd0$41675370$@iptrading.com> I support these changes and commend the board for responding to the needs expressed by members at the last meeting with this proposal to revise current procedures. In particular I support this statement: "All qualified nominees would be added to the slate as candidates for election. The reasons for classifications would be published when the slate is announced." Regards, Mike Burns -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27983 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7008 bytes Desc: not available URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Fri Feb 11 22:48:19 2022 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:48:19 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process In-Reply-To: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> References: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> Message-ID: This looks like a very substantial improvement that addresses most of the issues and concerns raised by the community. Thanks for proposing such a substantial improvement. But I am a bit unclear on the details of the tripartite (or is it quadripartite?) rating system. Is this understanding correct?: If the NomCom rates a candidate (for Board or AC) ?Well Qualified?, ?Qualified?, or ?Qualifications not Demonstrated? on the weighted average of the criteria in the Board Guidance Letter, that candidate is added to the slate, and their rating and the reasons for that rating are published when the slate is announced. The NomCom can only classify a candidate as "Unable to Qualify? if there exists an objective reason for their inability to serve (such as unresolvable conflict of interest, documented misrepresentation, or past conviction of crime or fraud), in which case that candidate is not added to the slate, they are (privately) informed of that fact, and they can use the petition process if desired. If they petition, (I presume?) ARIN may publish a statement on why they were classified as Unable to Qualify. Did I get all of that right? If so, I support these changes, but I would encourage you to clarify the process a bit to make it easier to understand without having to carefully re-read and cross-reference both the consultation and its FAQ multiple times. (Feel free to use my summary above if it's clear, correct, and useful.) Thanks, Scott On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:37 AM ARIN wrote: > The Board of Trustees maintains authority over the scope, mission, and > along with the President and Chief Executive Officer establishes ARIN?s > strategic direction and fiscal oversight. The Board also has oversight > authority of the nomination, appointment, and election of individuals to > Board committees and similar roles. > > Over the past two years, as part of its fiduciary duties, the ARIN Board > of Trustees (?Board?) has undertaken a review of ARIN?s governance > structures, including Elections and Nominations processes. As part of this > effort, an independent, outside consultant was engaged to review ARIN?s > governance structures and provide recommendations. > > One recommendation that has arisen from this governance review is to make > changes to the existing election and nomination processes. The proposed > changes will ensure board independence, transparency, and impartiality. > > ------------- > Board Guidance Letter > > ? The Board Guidance Letter (for each of the Board of Trustees and the > Advisory Council) contains "Highly Recommended" and "Recommended" > attributes and assigns a weighting to each attribute. > > ? The evaluation of each candidate would be tied to the degree to which > each attribute was satisfied. > > ------------- > Nomination Committee Selection > > ? The Nomination Committee (NomCom) has seven members in total, with the > members serving staggered two-year terms to ensure continuity and > succession planning. The NomCom Board members select non-board members via > an open call for nominations, appointing two or three members per year to > reach the total membership of seven. Up to two Advisory Council (AC) > members can serve on the NomCom. > > ? The NomCom is chaired by a Board Member. > > ------------- > Nominations > > Anyone can self-nominate by completing the questionnaire for the position > sought. Nominees must reside within the ARIN region. > > ------------- > Review of Potential Candidates > > ? The Nomination Committee (NomCom) would review nominees based on the > Board Guidance Letter, responses to questionnaires, responses to > third-party interviews (Board of Trustees only), material issues from > background checks (Board of Trustees only) and the review of ARIN files, > and other information available to the NomCom. > > ? The Board Guidance Letter defines "Highly Recommended" and "Recommended" > attributes. The NomCom would classify each qualified nominee as "Well > Qualified," "Qualified" or "Qualifications not Demonstrated" based on > evaluation of these attributes, in a fashion like that used by the American > Bar Association (ABA) Federal Judiciary process. All qualified nominees > would be added to the slate as candidates for election. The reasons for > classifications would be published when the slate is announced. > > ? The NomCom would evaluate each nominee on each weighted attribute to > inform the classification process. Any nominee classified as ?Unable to > Qualify? would not be added to the slate. > > ? Nominee questionnaires would include questions about the attributes > defined in the Board Guidance Letter. > > ? The NomCom would report on the total number of individuals assessed for > the election cycle. > > ------------- > Background Check Process > > The process is outlined in ARIN?s Election Processes document (Section > V(e)) and remains unchanged. > > ARIN?s GC and Sr. Director of HR & Administration (HR Director) will > arrange for a third- party vendor to conduct background checks for selected > nominees. ARIN?s GC and HR Director will review the reports for each > nominee and determine if there are any material issues with their > background. If any material issues are found, they will review the nature > of the background issue with the nominee. If after consultation with the > nominee, ARIN?s GC and HR Director still deems the issue as material, they > will notify the nominee that the relevant information will be provided to > the NomCom unless the nominee withdraws their candidacy. Relevant material > information may include information, if any, from a former ARIN volunteer?s > or former ARIN employee?s individual file. A nominee will be given the > opportunity to provide a statement addressing the issue which will also be > provided to the NomCom. If the nominee does not withdraw their candidacy, > the relevant information including the nominee?s statement, if any, will be > provided to the NomCom for consideration. > > ------------- > Board Proposal: > > ARIN will make changes to the selection of the NomCom, the Nomination > process, and the candidate review and rating system. > > The proposed changes will ensure board independence, transparency, and > impartiality. ARIN seeks community feedback on these proposed changes: > https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2022/2022-2/ > > This consultation will remain open for 15 days. > > An Appendix FAQ that further details the rationale for these changes and > additional information is available at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2022/FAQAppendix_202202consult.pdf > > 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. > > Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 28 February 2022. > > Regards, > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From athompso at athompso.net Sat Feb 12 00:10:55 2022 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 05:10:55 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process In-Reply-To: References: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> Message-ID: Scott, it sounds to me like you?ve restated what the original email said correctly, but the language is such that I?m not 100% positive, either! I wish communications from ARIN used RFC vocabulary and style, stopped using passive voice, and stopped using conditional verb tenses except where actually required. However, that?s not the subject under discussion. This last year, we?ve seen that a good many people are quite unhappy with the current NomCom process(es), and in at least some cases, /prima facie/, seemingly with good cause. The proposal sounds like a good step to me. I don?t think it?s perfect, in fact I can already see that it?s not perfect. Nonetheless, I don?t see any major blockers where I feel the need to argue *against* this change ? I think it goes in the right direction, and the NomCom simultaneously is critical, needs to protected from too much change too rapidly (lest the elections turn into a farce), yet also needs SOME change applied to it ASAP. I think the ARIN community needs to go through at least two or three nomination cycles with new rules to find out how they work and how they ?feel? to both the [potential] candidates and the membership. There is a small privacy concern, but IMHO anyone who?s uncomfortable with the possibility of publicly being known as someone who wasn?t the NomCom?s perfect candidate? probably shouldn?t be running for the board of an organization this public and transparent in the first place. And if the NomCom still rejects someone out of hand, it?s still private? whether it should be or not? I?m willing to take baby steps towards figuring that out. I would also like to see the NomCom provide anonymized statistics covering all the steps, from #A people were submitted for consideration, #B were rejected due to , #C were qualified, #D were well-qualified, #E were recommended, etc., etc.. I don?t see this addressed either in the text or the accompanying PDF ? have I missed something? It?s disturbing to learn that ARIN has apparently had reports recommending these changes since 2010, and a second set of recommendations in 2018 - but it seemingly took a fair-sized uproar this year to do anything with that information. Then, John (et al.), why did you pay for not one but two 3rd-party reports in the first place if they were just going to gather dust? This isn?t ultimately material to the adoption of the recommendations, it just points out that they may be more overdue than the membership realized. -Adam From: ARIN-consult On Behalf Of Scott Leibrand Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:48 PM To: ARIN Cc: ARIN-consult Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process This looks like a very substantial improvement that addresses most of the issues and concerns raised by the community. Thanks for proposing such a substantial improvement. But I am a bit unclear on the details of the tripartite (or is it quadripartite?) rating system. Is this understanding correct?: If the NomCom rates a candidate (for Board or AC) ?Well Qualified?, ?Qualified?, or ?Qualifications not Demonstrated? on the weighted average of the criteria in the Board Guidance Letter, that candidate is added to the slate, and their rating and the reasons for that rating are published when the slate is announced. The NomCom can only classify a candidate as "Unable to Qualify? if there exists an objective reason for their inability to serve (such as unresolvable conflict of interest, documented misrepresentation, or past conviction of crime or fraud), in which case that candidate is not added to the slate, they are (privately) informed of that fact, and they can use the petition process if desired. If they petition, (I presume?) ARIN may publish a statement on why they were classified as Unable to Qualify. Did I get all of that right? If so, I support these changes, but I would encourage you to clarify the process a bit to make it easier to understand without having to carefully re-read and cross-reference both the consultation and its FAQ multiple times. (Feel free to use my summary above if it's clear, correct, and useful.) Thanks, Scott On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:37 AM ARIN > wrote: The Board of Trustees maintains authority over the scope, mission, and along with the President and Chief Executive Officer establishes ARIN?s strategic direction and fiscal oversight. The Board also has oversight authority of the nomination, appointment, and election of individuals to Board committees and similar roles. Over the past two years, as part of its fiduciary duties, the ARIN Board of Trustees (?Board?) has undertaken a review of ARIN?s governance structures, including Elections and Nominations processes. As part of this effort, an independent, outside consultant was engaged to review ARIN?s governance structures and provide recommendations. One recommendation that has arisen from this governance review is to make changes to the existing election and nomination processes. The proposed changes will ensure board independence, transparency, and impartiality. ------------- Board Guidance Letter ? The Board Guidance Letter (for each of the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Council) contains "Highly Recommended" and "Recommended" attributes and assigns a weighting to each attribute. ? The evaluation of each candidate would be tied to the degree to which each attribute was satisfied. ------------- Nomination Committee Selection ? The Nomination Committee (NomCom) has seven members in total, with the members serving staggered two-year terms to ensure continuity and succession planning. The NomCom Board members select non-board members via an open call for nominations, appointing two or three members per year to reach the total membership of seven. Up to two Advisory Council (AC) members can serve on the NomCom. ? The NomCom is chaired by a Board Member. ------------- Nominations Anyone can self-nominate by completing the questionnaire for the position sought. Nominees must reside within the ARIN region. ------------- Review of Potential Candidates ? The Nomination Committee (NomCom) would review nominees based on the Board Guidance Letter, responses to questionnaires, responses to third-party interviews (Board of Trustees only), material issues from background checks (Board of Trustees only) and the review of ARIN files, and other information available to the NomCom. ? The Board Guidance Letter defines "Highly Recommended" and "Recommended" attributes. The NomCom would classify each qualified nominee as "Well Qualified," "Qualified" or "Qualifications not Demonstrated" based on evaluation of these attributes, in a fashion like that used by the American Bar Association (ABA) Federal Judiciary process. All qualified nominees would be added to the slate as candidates for election. The reasons for classifications would be published when the slate is announced. ? The NomCom would evaluate each nominee on each weighted attribute to inform the classification process. Any nominee classified as ?Unable to Qualify? would not be added to the slate. ? Nominee questionnaires would include questions about the attributes defined in the Board Guidance Letter. ? The NomCom would report on the total number of individuals assessed for the election cycle. ------------- Background Check Process The process is outlined in ARIN?s Election Processes document (Section V(e)) and remains unchanged. ARIN?s GC and Sr. Director of HR & Administration (HR Director) will arrange for a third- party vendor to conduct background checks for selected nominees. ARIN?s GC and HR Director will review the reports for each nominee and determine if there are any material issues with their background. If any material issues are found, they will review the nature of the background issue with the nominee. If after consultation with the nominee, ARIN?s GC and HR Director still deems the issue as material, they will notify the nominee that the relevant information will be provided to the NomCom unless the nominee withdraws their candidacy. Relevant material information may include information, if any, from a former ARIN volunteer?s or former ARIN employee?s individual file. A nominee will be given the opportunity to provide a statement addressing the issue which will also be provided to the NomCom. If the nominee does not withdraw their candidacy, the relevant information including the nominee?s statement, if any, will be provided to the NomCom for consideration. ------------- Board Proposal: ARIN will make changes to the selection of the NomCom, the Nomination process, and the candidate review and rating system. The proposed changes will ensure board independence, transparency, and impartiality. ARIN seeks community feedback on these proposed changes: https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2022/2022-2/ This consultation will remain open for 15 days. An Appendix FAQ that further details the rationale for these changes and additional information is available at: https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2022/FAQAppendix_202202consult.pdf 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. Discussion on arin-consult at arin.net will close on 28 February 2022. Regards, John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _______________________________________________ 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: From peter at colovore.com Sat Feb 12 04:12:44 2022 From: peter at colovore.com (Peter Harrison) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 01:12:44 -0800 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process In-Reply-To: References: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> Message-ID: Adam, Thanks for your review. The Board's Governance Working Group (GWG) has been evaluating board operations for the past two years. The topics of these consultations have been under systematic review as part of this process, in keeping with our fiduciary duties. Peter On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:11 PM Adam Thompson wrote: > Scott, it sounds to me like you?ve restated what the original email said > correctly, but the language is such that I?m not 100% positive, either! I > wish communications from ARIN used RFC vocabulary and style, stopped using > passive voice, and stopped using conditional verb tenses except where > actually required. However, that?s not the subject under discussion. > > > > This last year, we?ve seen that a good many people are quite unhappy with > the current NomCom process(es), and in at least some cases, /prima facie/, > seemingly with good cause. > > > > The proposal sounds like a good step to me. I don?t think it?s perfect, > in fact I can already see that it?s not perfect. Nonetheless, I don?t see > any major blockers where I feel the need to argue **against** this change > ? I think it goes in the right direction, and the NomCom simultaneously is > critical, needs to protected from too much change too rapidly (lest the > elections turn into a farce), yet also needs SOME change applied to it ASAP. > > I think the ARIN community needs to go through at least two or three > nomination cycles with new rules to find out how they work and how they > ?feel? to both the [potential] candidates and the membership. > > There is a small privacy concern, but IMHO anyone who?s uncomfortable with > the possibility of publicly being known as someone who wasn?t the NomCom?s > perfect candidate? probably shouldn?t be running for the board of an > organization this public and transparent in the first place. And if the > NomCom still rejects someone out of hand, it?s still private? whether it > should be or not? I?m willing to take baby steps towards figuring that out. > > > > I would also like to see the NomCom provide anonymized statistics covering > all the steps, from #A people were submitted for consideration, #B were > rejected due to , #C were qualified, #D were > well-qualified, #E were recommended, etc., etc.. I don?t see this > addressed either in the text or the accompanying PDF ? have I missed > something? > > > > It?s disturbing to learn that ARIN has apparently had reports recommending > these changes since 2010, and a second set of recommendations in 2018 - but > it seemingly took a fair-sized uproar this year to do anything with that > information. Then, John (et al.), why did you pay for not one but two 3rd-party > reports in the first place if they were just going to gather dust? This > isn?t ultimately material to the adoption of the recommendations, it just > points out that they may be more overdue than the membership realized. > > > > -Adam > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rs at seastrom.com Sat Feb 12 11:10:27 2022 From: rs at seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 11:10:27 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process In-Reply-To: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> References: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> Message-ID: <2CD42118-445B-4620-B26D-C90DF9870FE6@seastrom.com> While there is an obvious conflict of interest in serving on the nomcom contemporaneous with being nominated for election or re-election, I didn't see anything to address that in either the consultation or the FAQ. Am I overdue for an eye exam? This problem didn't seem to exist in the past with the nomcom being selected ad-hoc for each election cycle, but the two year staggered terms creates an opportunity for difficulties. Something as simple as "a submitted and acknowledged/confirmed nomination of a serving nomcom member for any position within the scope of the nomcom's search will constitute resignation from the nomcom" ought to suffice. Thoughts? -r From athompso at athompso.net Sat Feb 12 11:17:42 2022 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 16:17:42 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process In-Reply-To: <2CD42118-445B-4620-B26D-C90DF9870FE6@seastrom.com> References: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> <2CD42118-445B-4620-B26D-C90DF9870FE6@seastrom.com> Message-ID: I would go the other way, where NomCom simply may not be considered. Otherwise you could easily have a year where suddenly there is no NomCom! Didn't notice it because I just assumed it was somewhere, quite insane if that's not addressed somewhere. -Adam Get Outlook for Android ________________________________ From: ARIN-consult on behalf of Rob Seastrom Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:10:27 AM To: ARIN Cc:

Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process While there is an obvious conflict of interest in serving on the nomcom contemporaneous with being nominated for election or re-election, I didn't see anything to address that in either the consultation or the FAQ. Am I overdue for an eye exam? This problem didn't seem to exist in the past with the nomcom being selected ad-hoc for each election cycle, but the two year staggered terms creates an opportunity for difficulties. Something as simple as "a submitted and acknowledged/confirmed nomination of a serving nomcom member for any position within the scope of the nomcom's search will constitute resignation from the nomcom" ought to suffice. Thoughts? -r _______________________________________________ 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: From nancy at arin.net Sat Feb 12 12:12:22 2022 From: nancy at arin.net (Nancy Carter) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 12:12:22 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process In-Reply-To: References: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> <2CD42118-445B-4620-B26D-C90DF9870FE6@seastrom.com> Message-ID: <25330adb-5f5f-0a36-64d2-509213977f86@arin.net> Thank you Rob and Adam, We very much appreciate your comments. The particular topic that you have addressed today was not included in the Consultation because that scenario is precluded by both the ARIN bylaws Bylaws - American Registry for Internet Numbers (arin.net) (see Article VI), and Conflicts of Interest: Conflicts of Interest - American Registry for Internet Numbers (arin.net) . I hope that helps... Nancy On 02/12/2022 11:17 a.m., Adam Thompson wrote: > I would go the other way, where NomCom simply may not be considered.? > Otherwise you could easily have a year where suddenly there is no NomCom! > Didn't notice it because I just assumed it was somewhere, quite insane > if that's not addressed somewhere. > -Adam > > Get Outlook for Android > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* ARIN-consult on behalf of Rob > Seastrom > *Sent:* Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:10:27 AM > *To:* ARIN > *Cc:*

> *Subject:* Re: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation > on Elections and the Nomination Process > > While there is an obvious conflict of interest in serving on the > nomcom contemporaneous with being nominated for election or > re-election, I didn't see anything to address that in either the > consultation or the FAQ.? Am I overdue for an eye exam? > > This problem didn't seem to exist in the past with the nomcom being > selected ad-hoc for each election cycle, but the two year staggered > terms creates an opportunity for difficulties.? Something as simple as > "a submitted and acknowledged/confirmed nomination of a serving nomcom > member for any position within the scope of the nomcom's search will > constitute resignation from the nomcom" ought to suffice. > > Thoughts? > > -r > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 atinfo at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From athompso at athompso.net Sat Feb 12 12:52:31 2022 From: athompso at athompso.net (Adam Thompson) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 17:52:31 +0000 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process In-Reply-To: <25330adb-5f5f-0a36-64d2-509213977f86@arin.net> References: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> <2CD42118-445B-4620-B26D-C90DF9870FE6@seastrom.com> <25330adb-5f5f-0a36-64d2-509213977f86@arin.net> Message-ID: That counts as ?somewhere?, thank you for pointing out exactly where. The existing protections seem adequate to me. -Adam From: ARIN-consult On Behalf Of Nancy Carter Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 11:12 AM To: arin-consult at arin.net Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process Thank you Rob and Adam, We very much appreciate your comments. The particular topic that you have addressed today was not included in the Consultation because that scenario is precluded by both the ARIN bylaws Bylaws - American Registry for Internet Numbers (arin.net) (see Article VI), and Conflicts of Interest: Conflicts of Interest - American Registry for Internet Numbers (arin.net). I hope that helps... Nancy On 02/12/2022 11:17 a.m., Adam Thompson wrote: I would go the other way, where NomCom simply may not be considered. Otherwise you could easily have a year where suddenly there is no NomCom! Didn't notice it because I just assumed it was somewhere, quite insane if that's not addressed somewhere. -Adam Get Outlook for Android ________________________________ From: ARIN-consult

on behalf of Rob Seastrom Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:10:27 AM To: ARIN Cc:

Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process While there is an obvious conflict of interest in serving on the nomcom contemporaneous with being nominated for election or re-election, I didn't see anything to address that in either the consultation or the FAQ. Am I overdue for an eye exam? This problem didn't seem to exist in the past with the nomcom being selected ad-hoc for each election cycle, but the two year staggered terms creates an opportunity for difficulties. Something as simple as "a submitted and acknowledged/confirmed nomination of a serving nomcom member for any position within the scope of the nomcom's search will constitute resignation from the nomcom" ought to suffice. Thoughts? -r _______________________________________________ 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: From rs at seastrom.com Sat Feb 12 13:48:17 2022 From: rs at seastrom.com (Rob Seastrom) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2022 13:48:17 -0500 Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process In-Reply-To: References: <795653BD-4906-49E4-A838-2F5A99D3C7FE@arin.net> <2CD42118-445B-4620-B26D-C90DF9870FE6@seastrom.com> <25330adb-5f5f-0a36-64d2-509213977f86@arin.net> Message-ID: <8B21E397-DC8D-4424-8206-A2766286E943@seastrom.com> Thanks Nancy. Looks like the existing controls are fine. It would have been nice to have "additional constraints on the nomcom as expressed in the bylaws remain unchanged" in the consultation, but we can't hope to be truly exhaustive on such things. -r > On Feb 12, 2022, at 12:52 PM, Adam Thompson wrote: > > That counts as ?somewhere?, thank you for pointing out exactly where. The existing protections seem adequate to me. > -Adam > > From: ARIN-consult On Behalf Of Nancy Carter > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 11:12 AM > To: arin-consult at arin.net > Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process > > Thank you Rob and Adam, > > We very much appreciate your comments. > > The particular topic that you have addressed today was not included in the Consultation because that scenario is precluded by both the ARIN bylaws Bylaws - American Registry for Internet Numbers (arin.net) (see Article VI), and Conflicts of Interest: Conflicts of Interest - American Registry for Internet Numbers (arin.net) . > > I hope that helps... > > Nancy > > > > On 02/12/2022 11:17 a.m., Adam Thompson wrote: > I would go the other way, where NomCom simply may not be considered. Otherwise you could easily have a year where suddenly there is no NomCom! > Didn't notice it because I just assumed it was somewhere, quite insane if that's not addressed somewhere. > -Adam > > Get Outlook for Android > From: ARIN-consult

on behalf of Rob Seastrom > Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:10:27 AM > To: ARIN > Cc:

> Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process > > > While there is an obvious conflict of interest in serving on the nomcom contemporaneous with being nominated for election or re-election, I didn't see anything to address that in either the consultation or the FAQ. Am I overdue for an eye exam? > > This problem didn't seem to exist in the past with the nomcom being selected ad-hoc for each election cycle, but the two year staggered terms creates an opportunity for difficulties. Something as simple as "a submitted and acknowledged/confirmed nomination of a serving nomcom member for any position within the scope of the nomcom's search will constitute resignation from the nomcom" ought to suffice. > > Thoughts? > > -r > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: