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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 7, 2022, at 09:37 , John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> 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"

Well, within the constraints of requiring a plurality of votes cast, quorum, etc.


> 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.

Except that it eliminates the existing constraints.

It doesn’t just open up the possible use of STV. It also (technically) opens up the possible use of coin-toss, game of poker, slot machine contest, appointment of new board members by existing board, or virtually any other mechanism the board may choose.

So I’m suggesting that yes, it’s a good idea to allow some form of RCV (whether it be STV or another, personally, I favor STV). However, I’m also suggesting that since the bylaw/articles of incorporation change necessary to allow that is either broad (allowing for virtually any system of board appointment) or overly specific (amend the bylaws to specifically require STV) and the board has (IMHO rightly) chose broad, that to preserve proper checks and balances (i.e. to make sure the board isn’t able to choose coin-toss or board-appointment), there need to be a balancing set of controls put in place along side this amendment to the bylaws.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-consult/attachments/20220107/1f970768/attachment.htm>