<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 16:05 , John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" class="">jcurran@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="">
Mike -
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class="">
<div class="">We do not know how many of the 7000 end-users will opt for general membership - I suspect a few end-user participants on this list will do so, and perhaps several hundred more (e.g. 300 to 500) </div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Both of me will.</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=""><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class="">
<div class="">Of our existing general membership, it is estimated that only about 1200 or so organizations have voted in one of the past three elections. If that is indicative of the 2021 - 2022 - 2023 election period, then in 2024 we would see many of the
existing general members recategorized as service members and end up with a general membership of 1500 or so (300 + 1200 = 1500)</div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Given that roughly 600 organizations participated in each of the past three elections, a total of 1200 organizations is a surprisingly low overlap amongst voting organizations across three years.</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=""><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class="">
<div class="">2% of 1500 is 30, so that could easily be the 2024 petition threshold absent the “100 minimum” language. Realistically though, all of those who might participate in a petition then would be the same as the community today (or even larger given
the end-users who consciously decide to become general members), and a petition threshold of 124 was satisfied by two candidates in the present election. </div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>What’s wrong with a petition threshold of 30 among 1500 eligible signatories?</div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class="">
<div class="">Our petition threshold is set as a percentage of general members, so the moment that the general member count becomes reflective of the actively involved community rather than just the count of ISPs in ARIN, then the 2% petition threshold will
drop – and this despite the fact that the active community will be the same size as today or even larger. </div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>The problem is that it won’t drop as far as it should. Unless you’re claiming that 100% of petition signatories are from the “active community” in this election, I think Mike is right about the tone deafness of this move.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>It takes a pretty impressive level of tone deafness to produce a result where Mike Burns and I agree on something.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><br class=""></body></html>