<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">I think the idea of people being “captured” and “bought” is a total red herring. The real issue that I’ve understood from the folks who've couched the topic of term limits is the need for new ideas and new faces. I think that is something that is desperately needed as the policy framework that exists today has not changed since InterNIC first laid that groundwork in the 70’s-90’s<div><br></div><div>Just 2 elections ago the AC was completely dominated by 2 major carriers. Typically 5 seats are up for grabs every year. What would make it more “trivial” were term limits in place vs. knowing 3 years in advance that a specific seat would be up for re-election? I don’t see one bit of difference between the two. Whether someone is term limited or up for re-election they could be just as easily targeted by an organization. There is nothing we can do about this outside of some ridiculous campaign finance policy. So far as I know this has <b>never happened</b> nor has anyone presented a suggestion that is has. As it stands, today, the "super carriers" are already massively advantaged as far as fees and allocation policy. As far as I can tell up until earlier this year no one in the BoT or the AC ever considered fundamentally rethinking the fee structure or the slow start policy of IP allocation. Is it because the AC and BoT have been bought? I highly doubt it. so lets stop spinning or wheels on nonsense and try to focus on actual issues instead of conspiracy theories.</div><div><br></div><div>Jesse</div><div><br><div><div>On Mar 28, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Jo Rhett <<a href="mailto:jrhett@netconsonance.com">jrhett@netconsonance.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">On Mar 28, 2014, at 1:27 PM, David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu">farmer@umn.edu</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">I'm neutral on the overall concept of term limits in general. It could be a highly positive change for the organization, if it brings more diverse participation into the policy process. However, conversely it could be a highly negative change for the organization, if it leads to more capture of the policy process by large industry players who have a larger pool of candidates to draw from by their pure size of their organizations as people are term-limited of from smaller organizations.<br></blockquote><br><br>I am firmly against this proposal for exactly what he said. Currently being inside one such organization, it would be trivial for us to game the system.<br><br>-- <br>Jo Rhett<br>+1 (415) 999-1798<br>Skype: jorhett<br>Net Consonance : net philanthropy to improve open source and internet projects.<br><br>Author of <br> - Learning MCollective: <a href="http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032472.do">http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920032472.do</a><br> - Instant Puppet 3 Starter: <a href="http://www.netconsonance.com/instant-puppet-3-starter-book/">http://www.netconsonance.com/instant-puppet-3-starter-book/</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>ARIN-Consult<br>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing<br>List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-consult@arin.net">ARIN-consult@arin.net</a>).<br>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult</a> Please contact the ARIN Member Services<br>Help Desk at <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>