<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 Nov 6, 2021, at 8:39 AM, 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=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We have no data on how many end users will actively participate in ARIN processes. So come January 1st if we opt-in that would immediately *raise* the actual number of members required to hit a percentage based threshold without any idea how many are interested in participating in this. That seems like potential disenfranchisement to me.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I agree that the thresholds should be modified. I’m not convinced that percentage-based thresholds are the right answer to begin with. I’ve offered at least one alternative possibility.</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="">End users are going to be able to go through a very simple request process (which I believe the plan is to automate as soon as possible) to switch to a General member. ARIN will be reminding people and end users have tons of time to do this before the cut off to be a general member and vote in the next election. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Do they? Does this include end-users who won’t renew until September or October?</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="">I’m struggling to see the great barrier before end users who wish to switch from Service to General. I do see benefits to the General membership on not opting them in.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>It’s not a great barrier, per se, so long as each and every disenfranchised member has been through some process of verifying that they wish to be disenfranchised. What I would truly hate to see is a scenario where a bunch of disenfranchised members come out of the woodwork claiming they were not aware that they were being disenfranchised.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Hence my belief that voting rights should be inherently opt-out. ARIN should have to proactively ask each end user if they wish to be disenfranchised rather than simply waving a wand and disenfranchising them without informed consent IMHO.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Given ARIN’s historically limited ability to reliably contact end user organizations in a verifiable manner, I think that’s a valid concern.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</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=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 6, 2021, at 10:17 AM, Owen DeLong via ARIN-consult <<a href="mailto:arin-consult@arin.net" class="">arin-consult@arin.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><br class=""><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(127, 127, 127, 1.0);" class=""><b class="">From: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>><br class=""></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(127, 127, 127, 1.0);" class=""><b class="">Subject: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class=""><b class="">Re: [ARIN-consult] Reminder - Consultation on ARIN’s Membership Structure</b><br class=""></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(127, 127, 127, 1.0);" class=""><b class="">Date: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">November 6, 2021 at 10:17:18 AM CDT<br class=""></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(127, 127, 127, 1.0);" class=""><b class="">To: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" class="">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br class=""></span></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px;" class=""><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif; color:rgba(127, 127, 127, 1.0);" class=""><b class="">Cc: </b></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-system-font, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, sans-serif;" class="">John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>>, "<<a href="mailto:arin-consult@arin.net" class="">arin-consult@arin.net</a>>" <<a href="mailto:arin-consult@arin.net" class="">arin-consult@arin.net</a>><br class=""></span></div><br class=""><br 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 Nov 5, 2021, at 10:48 PM, Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" class="">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS) (and considerably better than the current state, where only ISPs vote).</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>The proposal doesn’t prevent the petition threshold from increasing unless it successfully disenfranchises a significant fraction of member organizations.</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">But we could accomplish similar goals more simply, for example by just redefining the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Personally, I’d rather see the petition threshold set similar to the petition thresholds in the PDP. Something like 30 unique individuals from 30 unique organizations would be fine IMHO.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Further, even if we are going to create an enfranchised and a disenfranchised class of members, I’d prefer to see that disenfranchisement apply only to actual voting. The nomination process, petition process, etc. should remain open to all members (ideally all member POCs, not just the voting POC).</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">More detailed response inline below.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:49 PM Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class="">By forcing everyone from the old fees to the “Registration Services Plan”, they get membership automatically just like anyone else on an RSP.</div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">Ok, yes: after a more careful reading, I agree that the 2022 fee structure and the current membership guidelines would interact to produce a situation where ARIN approximately doubles its current membership. And I agree we should be comparing the proposed changes both to the "do nothing" alternative as well as to the current state. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">Without these (or some other) changes, the "do nothing" alternative would result in the petition threshold being raised from the current 124 ("two-percent of eligible General Members in Good Standing") to about 250 (with a corresponding increase in the number of organizations eligible to sign such petitions).</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Agreed. I’m not advocating for “do nothing”, but I am advocating for “do something different”.</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">This proposal under consultation would prune inactive members (who haven't voted 3 years in a row) from the voter rolls, and require them to re-register to be able to vote again. In doing so, it would reduce the count of eligible-to-vote organizations (General Members in Good Standing) considerably, most likely well below 6200, thereby reducing the petition threshold (while selectively decreasing the organizations eligible to sign petitions by removing those least likely to be paying attention and interested in doing so) below the current level, and likely down to the minimum of 100. That would have the net effect of making petitions slightly easier than they are now.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>It would also automatically and immediately disenfranchise all of the end user organizations being coerced into higher fees and membership unless they took specific proactive measures to cancel that disenfranchisement.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the case of those that were entitled to, but haven’t voted in the three previous there’s a somewhat valid point. In the case of those that didn’t previously have membership and are being coerced into paying for membership, I think that voting rights should be opt-out, not opt-in at the least. New members should default to having voting rights. If they don’t vote for 3 years, I could live with taking them off the voting roles (it still doesn’t sit well with me, but I’d accept that as valid evidence they didn’t care). But defaulting to “we forced you to be a member, but we’re not going to let you vote unless you reach out and demand your rights” strikes me as less than honorable.</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><div class="">As noted above, I still believe that the proposed changes are slightly better than doing nothing and allowing the petition threshold to increase to >200 (from a larger pool of GMIGS).</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>I agree slightly better, but on the same level that Syphilis is slightly better than AIDS. There are better alternatives than the proposed changes or doing nothing. There is no reason to limit ourselves to those two choices.</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Another less restrictive alternative would be to continue to allow individual organizations to decide for themselves whether to receive election information and be eligible to participate in elections via the current mechanism: "designating a Voting Contact and keeping that information up-to-date is a crucial responsibility of each ARIN Member. Without updated Voting Contact information, a member organization loses the ability to vote in annual ARIN Elections" (<a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/" class="">https://www.arin.net/participate/oversight/membership/</a>). If that remains in place, we could redefine the petition threshold to be 2% of GMIGS with a valid Voting Contact, as of the opening of the Call for Nominations. Alternatively, if we want to start from the construct of Service Members vs. General Members, we could accomplish largely the same thing by removing the 1-year waiting period before Service Members can apply to become General Members. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>I’d be fine with this.</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">If the goal is to prevent "poorly informed single-issue voters dropping by for an outrage election and overwhelming the votes of the folks who've stayed well informed and participated over time" (as Bill Herrin put it), perhaps we could accomplish that simply by having the voter registration deadline (to apply to be a General Member, or to provide a Voting Contact, respectively) be something like the date of the opening of the Call for Nominations.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>I guess it depends on what people are outraged about. Personally, I think that if ARIN has managed to outrage that many existing members, perhaps such a protection is not such a good thing. In fact, I’d much rather have existing members doing single-issue outrage voting than have agenda-based org creation (which would still be possible, albeit expensive) swamp the vote. (@$250 per org, creating 400+ ORGs (which would currently do the trick, but post fee</div><div class="">structure change who knows?) is $100,000).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Nonetheless, while I’m not big on disenfranchising voters through any mechanism, my biggest concern here is defaulting existing organizations that are coerced into membership into the disenfranchised category from day 1 while continuing to default new organizations into the enfranchised category on the same basis. It feels asymmetric and unfair to me.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="gmail_quote"><br class=""></div>-Scott<br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"></div><div class=""> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:29 PM, Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="auto" class="">Can you point me to the language that makes end users into general members under the new fee schedule?<br class=""><br class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Scott</div></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Nov 5, 2021, at 7:10 PM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On Nov 5, 2021, at 16:32, Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">I am generally in support of these changes, because they would allow people like me, as an employee of an End User organization, to participate and vote in ARIN elections.</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>No, the fee structure change brings that about. <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">These changes are strictly aimed at providing a mechanism to disenfranchise those who don’t vote in 3 consecutive elections. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>Minor nit: The redline changes introduced a couple of typos in both places where it's supposed to say "participate in members-only discussions".<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In the unlikely-for-now event that general membership declines below current levels, the 100-member petition threshold could represent a majority of (or in the pathological case, exceed) the number of general members. You could eliminate that corner case by putting an upper bound on the petition threshold, such as 20%, so it reads something like: "The number of signatures required for petition nominations shall be at least two percent (2%) of, but no less than the greater of one hundred (100) or 20% of, eligible General Members as of the established opening date of the nomination period."<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In Section 5. Unfulfilled Positions and Partial Terms, it might be worth specifying whether the next-highest vote-getter assuming the unfilled position serves for the entire term or just the first year (as with appointed vacancies).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-Scott</div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 3:33 PM John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Alan - <br class="">
<br class="">
Pretty much correct - if you are a general member and did not vote in any of the past three elections, you will become a service member for the coming year. We intend to conduct that review annually after each election starting after the ARIN 2023 election. <br class="">
<br class="">
FYI,<br class="">
/John<br class="">
<br class="">
John Curran<br class="">
President and CEO<br class="">
American Registry for Internet Numbers<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
> On 5 Nov 2021, at 11:59 AM, Alan Batie <<a href="mailto:alan@peak.org" target="_blank" class="">alan@peak.org</a>> wrote:<br class="">
> <br class="">
> On 11/5/21 9:48 AM, ARIN wrote:<br class="">
>> Due to the level of interest in the topic, we have extended the Consultation on ARIN’s Membership Structure for an additional two weeks. It will now close on 29 November. The purpose of this consultation is to provide our customers ARIN’s plan for membership going forward and to seek feedback on planned changes to ARIN’s membership structure for 2022.<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> The full text of the consultation is available at:<br class="">
>> <br class="">
>> <a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/consultations/2021/2021-5/</a><br class="">
> <br class="">
> If I read this right, it basically says "if you don't vote, we're not<br class="">
> going to let you vote" (which seems to be the only difference between<br class="">
> Service and General members)?<br class="">
> <br class="">
> <br class="">
> _______________________________________________<br class="">
> ARIN-Consult<br class="">
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing<br class="">
> List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-consult@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">ARIN-consult@arin.net</a>).<br class="">
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class="">
> <a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult</a> Please contact the ARIN Member Services<br class="">
> Help Desk at <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
ARIN-Consult<br class="">
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing<br class="">
List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-consult@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">ARIN-consult@arin.net</a>).<br class="">
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class="">
<a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult</a> Please contact the ARIN Member Services<br class="">
Help Desk at <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br class="">
</blockquote></div>
<span class="">_______________________________________________</span><br class=""><span class="">ARIN-Consult</span><br class=""><span class="">You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing</span><br class=""><span class="">List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-consult@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">ARIN-consult@arin.net</a>).</span><br class=""><span class="">Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:</span><br class=""><span class=""><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult</a> Please contact the ARIN Member Services</span><br class=""><span class="">Help Desk at <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</span><br class=""></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div><br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">ARIN-Consult<br class="">You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Consult Mailing<br class="">List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-consult@arin.net" class="">ARIN-consult@arin.net</a>).<br class="">Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class=""><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult" class="">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-consult</a> Please contact the ARIN Member Services<br class="">Help Desk at <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" class="">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>