[arin-discuss] voting

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 2:03 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting
>
>
>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.
>

I used the IPv6 thing as an immediately recognizable hot button, no
more than that.  Although there is of course some overlap - as
fee structure can be setup to encourage IPv6 uptake - as the board
has already figured out.

>   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.

I'm one of the "mostly content with how the board runs things" people
so I have to agree with the "I don't pay enough attention to the
candidates to have an informed vote" camp.  I actually like the fact that
a smaller number of self-selected informed people cast the votes, rather
than a much larger number of ignorant people.  We have the latter in the
national
US elections and it's pretty apparent that hasn't been a steller method
of getting good presidents.

Ted