[arin-discuss] voting

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net
>[mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
>Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 1:44 PM
>To: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting
>
>
>"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:
>> Paul I'll respond to this for myself.
>> ...
>> For example, you were just elected.  What is YOUR position on IPv6?  I
>> don't really know.
>
>the board's statement on ipv6 was made while i was a trustee here, 
>and even if
>i hadn't joined the majority for that decision, i don't know if 
>i'd feel right
>speaking against the statement.  
><http://www.arin.net/v6/v6-resolution.html>.
>

Paul, that statement is one of the most bland watered down
meaningless statements that could be made.  How could you
possibly be against it?  Or for it?  It requires and mandates
NOTHING specific or concrete.

Boiled down it says in effect IPv6 is a good thing and you
all ought to move to it.

In any case, it ignores the various "IPv4 buying and selling
on a free market" proposals, and many other controversal
aspects of IPv6 migration, it says nothing about whether 
RETURNED IPv4 will be re-allocated back out, and so on and
so on.  In short, it is a perfect example of what I'm talking
about, it simply restates what we all already know.

And if you actually have a problem with the statement personally,
then I wouldn't want to elect you if you were not willing to
speak your mind.

An honorable board member who had concerns about an issue
and disagreed with the majorities decision would not hesitate
for a second to speak it publically.  It is very possible to
be opposed to something but still implement it.
For example, I think male anti-abortionists are sick human beings,
advocating for something that they have no business talking
about, but I'll defend to the death their right to advocate it.

There are many US soldiers who think the Iraq war is wrong but
they still put on their guns every morning and go out and fight.

When the US Supreme Court makes a decision the minority justices
are very vocal in why they think the majority is wrong.  However,
if subsequent to this, someone uses the court's decision as
precedent, the Supreme Sourt justices that disagree with the
earlier decision will still consider the precedent as valid.

If your not comfortable in the role of disagreeing with something
yet still being a part of implementing it, then you frankly do
not have the right stuff to be on the board.

>> Do you see why I 
>don't feel competent to vote for or against you?
>
>would this be like promising two chickens in every pot, or would 
>this be like
>a litmus test for judicial appointments?  if either, then i'd be 
>against it.
>

No, it would be like simply saying your mind.  As far as someone
using one of your positions as a litmus test - well that's happening
now, with the noise that Dean is making, so I fail to see what
real difference there is.

You need to put your positions out there on the controversal
issues and assume that everyone voting will consider your entire
list of positions.  For example, I may deplore your wishy-washy
position on IPv6 and prefer someone more agressive about 
implementing it - but on the other hand, I hate spammers and
even people using the CAN-SPAM act to hide behind the law and
still spam anyway, so I love your position on shutting down spammers,
I espically love that Dean hates you since I am operating from
the aspect of anyone who even makes the slightest effort to
support bulk e-mail, whether it's legal spam or not, is my
enemy, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So, I have at least 2 litmus tests here, you might say, and
I think a lot of people are like this - they have a lot of
things they want to see get done, and they will go for the
person that is as close to their list as they can get - but they
realize they can't have everything.

>for myself, what i need to know about a candidate is whether they 
>have insight
>and highly principled flexibility and industry experience and fiduciary
>experience and maybe even some creativity and wisdom and certainly 
>an ability
>to work with difficult people or under difficult conditions.  i 
>can't think of
>a way to learn these things from somebody's online bio or some 
>litmus tests.
>

Name one candidate presented who DIDN'T have these qualifications.
I think every one of them did.

You need to trust the membership more.  If someone actually ran
who was an idiot who had no experience who couldn't work with
anyone, the membership would definitely get the word out and
they wouldn't be elected.

>that having been said, i would love it if we had debates rather than just
>candidate statements.  maybe a webinar with call-in by voice and 
>jabber.  but
>would that increase participation among potential voters?  if not, 
>what would?
>

It will only increase participation if something controversial is
in the mix.  Controversy attracts people.  If every candidate comes
off all agreeing with each other, then nobody will be interested.

It boils down to what each candidate's views are.  ARIN has a future,
what is that future going to be?  There are many paths that can be
taken.  Whoever is elected will be guiding ARIN down one of those paths.
If every single candidate and every single ARIN member all agrees
what path there is to be taken, then is there really any point to
having an election?

Ted