[ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections

[John Curran]

Adam -

Yes, one could consider it a bug or a feature, depending on perspective.   It is, however, not the question being asked of the consultation, which rather seeks to ask “Should the ARIN Board of Trustees be able to specify use of the non-plurality model of STV for ARIN elections, including necessary changes to the Articles and Bylaws to allow that?”

(I have no objection to more specific constraints on ARIN election processes in the Bylaws, but would suggest that such be done only to enshrine a successful approach that’s been proven after several years of operating experience...)

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

On 7 Jan 2022, at 9:55 AM, Adam Thompson <athompson at merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athompson at merlin.mb.ca>> wrote:

I get your point… but that’s a bug, not a feature.  What you’ve described below is precisely the problem we’re now noticing, or becoming aware of.
-Adam

Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
<image001.png>
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
athompson at merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athompson at merlin.mb.ca>
www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/>

From: ARIN-consult <arin-consult-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult-bounces at arin.net>> On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Friday, January 7, 2022 11:38 AM
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>>
Cc: arin-consult at arin.net<mailto:arin-consult at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [ARIN-consult] Consultation on Implementing Single Transferrable Voting for ARIN Elections

On 7 Jan 2022, at 9:15 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
...
Currently, the membership is able to have faith that the board will not unilaterally move away from majority election of directors because
Virginia law forbids it without a change to the articles of incorporation that they would have to approve.

The blanket language proposed in the current change, however, would allow the board to adopt any process it so chooses at any
time without being subject to review of the membership.

I think many, myself included, would like to see some level of check and balance requiring membership and/or community involvement
and consideration in changing the election process(es) rather than writing a blank check for the board to do whatever it likes in this
regard.

Owen -

For clarity, I’d like to address the question you raise about Board latitude in ARIN election processes, as that is a topic that is not actually addressed by the present consultation.

Yes, the membership can rest assured under the present Articles and Bylaws that plurality voting will be used, but the remainder of the ARIN Election Processes are entirely under the control of the ARIN Board of Trustees with nominal constraints given in ARIN Bylaws; i.e. the present Articles and Bylaws provide the Board of Trustees rather generous latitude in establishment of the Election processes and already the Bylaws substantially allow "the board to adopt any process it so chooses at any time without being subject to review of the membership"

The proposed Article and Bylaws change in the consultation does not change this latitude in a material manner, other than opening up the possible use of a STV voting system rather than the Virginia default of plurality.    I understand that you’re suggesting that there should be much less Board latitude in establishing of ARIN’s Election Processes, but to some extent that is an orthogonal question to whether the ARIN Board be allowed to adopt election processes that specify STV voting model.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20220107/5f7e35c4/attachment.htm>