[ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2022.2: Consultation on Elections and the Nomination Process
peter at colovore.com
Sat Feb 12 04:12:44 EST 2022
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
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 9:11 PM Adam Thompson <athompso at athompso.net> 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 <unable to qualify>, #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
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-consult