<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 28, 2021, at 14:42 , Paul Andersen - ARIN <<a href="mailto:paul@arin.net" class="">paul@arin.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 28, 2021, at 5:24 PM, Richard Laager <<a href="mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com" class="">rlaager@wiktel.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/28/21 4:19 PM, Paul Andersen -
ARIN wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:6D245ABE-ACC1-4DA1-87ED-04BCC5AE8ABB@arin.net" class="">
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">There were 603 Member Orgs who voted for the BoT,
595 who voted for the AC. I’d make an educated guess that there
is high overlap between the two. But a larger pool of potential
members will come with the End Users who will be eligible to
become members but it is hard to know how many will want to be
engaged. Nor can we tell whether a mandate to vote to stay a
member may engage more members.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">So the nomination-by-petition threshold is being raised from 2%
of ~600 = 10 to 100. That's quite a big jump. What's the rationale
for this</p></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The number of voting members isn’t expected to drop since we’ve had a pretty steady count the past five years.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">2020 - 603</div><div class="">2019 - 545</div><div class="">2018 - 660</div><div class="">2017 - 491</div><div class="">2016 - 583 </div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>But…</div><div><br class=""></div><div>That means that if this had been in place in 2015, that in 2017, the 491 voters would have to have been made up entirely of new members + some true subset of the 583 that voted in 2016.</div><div>In 2018, you couldn’t have achieved 660 voters unless 169 additional voters came from some combination of 2015-disenfranchisees and 2017 new members.</div><div>So your number in 2018 would likely have been far less than 660.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>In fact, it seems to me that this process is very likely to create a continuing downward trend in the number of active voters by creating a downward trend in eligible voters even without membership</div><div>attrition.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class="">And I think we can safely assume a noticeable increase from end users given many are engaged on the lists and now have the ability to become members. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>They’ve had the ability to become members for quite some time now. Now they are being coerced into membership whether they want it or not, along with a substantial fee hike in exchange for the privilege.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class="">But an obvious side effect of this proposal is there will be a drop at some point when those who have chosen not to stay as an engaged member drop off which throws off the percentages. I don’t think the thresholds in reality will be hard to achieve but welcome the feedback.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>It’ll get pretty exciting if/when you end up with <100 “general” members and someone wants to petition.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">Separately, what's the rationale for requiring active voting to
maintain voting rights?<br class="">
</p>
</div></div></blockquote></div><div class="">There are organizations who come to ARIN (sometimes frequently, sometimes once in a blue moon) and just want to use ARIN services and do not wish to be general members and this change allows that. For those that do choose to become members we are asking them to show their commitment to some degree of engagement. This was seen as a simple to track method; however, I think we’d very much welcome suggestions that are not burdensome on the organization to track.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div></div>How about something more like annual POC validation that asks the voting contact for the organization to choose a simple “Yes/No” to “Do you wish to remain the voting contact for $ORG?” once a year?<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>