[arin-discuss] voting

[John Curran]

At 12:07 PM -0800 2/5/08, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>The second thing I look for is what the cadidate's opinions or
>position on "the controversial issues" is.  This here is where I think
>the problem is.

Ted -
 
   Thanks for message; there are indeed two common practices
   that some other organizations use during elections to improve
   understanding of the candidates:  1) Written Statements from
   Candidates, and 2) Candidates positions on a specified list of topics
   which is selected by the election/nomination committee.  Either
   of these is a possible consideration to be added to the election
   process.

   One thought to be considered is that the roles of the ARIN AC
   and ARIN Board mean that many of the questions that might
   be popular (e.g. supporting IPv6 promotion, tightening IPv4
   policies) might actually more relevant to the Advisory Council,
   where you have a group of folks who actively guide the policy
   proposal process, as opposed to the ARIN Board, where views
   on ARIN fiscal policy, outreach, and services to the legacy
   community are potentially most relevant.

   In any case, thanks for the excellent thoughts.  I'm not going to
   repeat myself verbatim for the fourth time today, but will note
   that you can make a specific suggestion to the ACSP.  In any case,
   we'll bring up the "candidate view" requirement in the session at
   the Denver meeting.

/John