[arin-discuss] voting

[Scott Leibrand]

Overall, I'm in favor of debates as a way to increase voter 
participation, and bring to light real differences between candidates, 
both in their positions and in their "character": the ability to think 
on their feet, communicate effectively, and demonstrate an understanding 
of the issues important to the position.  I don't much like the practice 
in meatspace politics of creating/exaggerating controversy where none 
really exists, but I think there are enough differing views on issues of 
substance that some form of debate would help us pick the best 
candidates, both for the BoT and the AC.

-Scott

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vixie at vix.com [mailto:vixie at vix.com]On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:52 PM
>> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
>> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting
>>
>>
>>     
>>> I guess maybe it was proven to me - although perhaps the
>>>       
>> information is too
>>     
>>> scattered for the general public?  I honestly didn't know that there were
>>> still people out there who were seriously entertaining an
>>>       
>> IPv6-less scenario
>>     
>>> on the Internet.
>>>       
>> there were, and there are.  i had breakfast with a guy today who
>> works for a
>> big router vendor and has been around the internet since early
>> days who still
>> thinks NAT (which he and i both despise) has won and that IPv6 is
>> doomed since
>> it has no backwards compatibility to IPv4.  (for the record, we disagreed.)
>>
>>     
>
> Well, your both right you know.  NAT won a battle - but it's not the
> battle he was thinking it won.  Where NAT won is that without it
> we wouldn't have the Internet at all today.  NAT allowed the Internet
> to get past the tipping point without having to shread everything and
> start all over again.
>
> The tipping point was the point at which the Internet stopped being
> a toy and started being a necessity.
>
> I remember long enough ago that the argument "we don't need no steenking
> Internet" had some validity.  I heard it often enough when working
> with our sales people back in the late 90's trying to sell businesses
> on Internet connectivity.  If we had had to go back to our customers in
> 2002 or some such and tell them that this new Internet thing we had
> just sold them a couple years earlier was no good anymore and they had
> to change everything again, they would have tossed us out along with
> all the other ISP's.
>
> Today of course, they are screwed and cannot do this or their competitors
> will eat them alive.  Customers now are demanding their vendors have
> e-mail and online websites and all that and so in 5 or 6 years from now
> when I tell them they have to toss everything and put in IPv6, they
> will accept it without question.
>
> NAT basically took the entire IPv4 vs IPv6 argument and moved it
> into the purvue of a bunch of techs who don't really have anything
> to say about it in any case.  When the last IPv4 assignment is out
> the door those techs will be told by their CEO's to implement
> IPv6 and shut up about it.
>
> You just watch North America and the conversion to High Def TV next
> February.  I have hardly heard a peep from friends of mine along the
> lines of "why are we doing this"  Every last one of them has swallowed
> the line that they need to do it because Someone Who Knows More Than
> They Do has told them to do it, and all of them are running out and
> spending their income tax refund on big TV sets.  Maybe one or two
> of them has made the observation that there's no better programming
> on Hi Def than on the old formats, you would think that might prompt the
> question of why are we doing this - but no it hasn't.
>
> Consumers are getting used to the idea in high tech that things
> change and your old stuff isn't going to work forever.  Hell, a
> 1960's rotary dial handset telephone still works perfectly fine
> on the telephone network - when was the last time you saw one of
> those?  There's a case of a technical upgrade made when one was
> not even required.
>
>   
>>> ... would it not be of interest for board candidates to state
>>>       
>> their support
>>     
>>> or not for [IPv6 advancement] in advance of the election?  I
>>>       
>> would think if
>>     
>>> it's controversal for some people that doing so would increase voting
>>> participation.
>>>       
>> i guess, when you put it that way, it sounds like a fine idea.  john curran
>> has said repeatedly here in recent days that ARIN Denver is where he hopes
>> this community will discuss ways to improve the election process.
>> since our
>> elections are governed by bylaws rather than by the NRPM, the
>> policy process
>> is not really the right way to change our election process.  i think that a
>> well reasoned proposal here (arin-discuss@) ideally to be followed up by an
>> in-person proposal during the friday membership meeting, is the
>> way to share
>> your wisdom about getting candidates to answer some hot-button questions in
>> advance of an election.
>>
>>     
>
> OK, I'll see what I can put together.  However, keep in mind this
> is just my opinion on what would increase voting.  I've operated from
> the premise that controversy during an election increases turnout.
> I haven't seen much posted to this thread.  I don't know if this is
> because everyone else kind of agrees with me or if no one else has
> any different ideas.  My experience - in following US politics for
> the last 27 years, and in reading much about politics in history
> of the US - is that people are attracted to elections that are
> controversal, they want to vote in them, and as a result the vote
> count increases.  Thus, if you want to increase participation - be
> more controversal.
>
> Now the key is, though, that the controversy must affect the voters
> you want participating.  Candidates arguing over the best color scheme
> to use on the arin website likly won't increase participation, bikeshed
> theory nonwithstanding.
>
>   
>>> ... I would rather favor the style of a moderated debate where
>>>       
>> there would
>>     
>>> be a question submittal period where folks (including the
>>>       
>> candidates) could
>>     
>>> submit questions to a moderator in advance, then the moderator
>>>       
>> would combine
>>     
>>> like questions and add a synthesis of issues off the mailing list, plus
>>> issues that the prior Boards had deferred, and create a master
>>>       
>> list of open
>>     
>>> ended questions.  Each candidate would respond to the moderator
>>>       
>> how they saw
>>     
>>> fit, the questions and responses would then be posted.
>>>       
>> sounds good so far.  will need more flesh.  could the moderator be
>> drawn from
>> the membership or staff, or should it be an outside consultant?
>>
>>     
>
> Ideally it should be someone from ARIN staff who I believe is
> forbidden to vote in these elections.  Ideally, that person should
> be assisted by any outgoing board members NOT running for re-election,
> along with board members who are not up for re-election during
> that election.  Ideally, the moderators involvement in the entire voting
> process should be confined to this task only.
>
> If the process is an open one (ie: the raw
> questions are available, the board minutes are available, the
> list postings used are available) then it really does not matter
> that much who the moderator is.
>
> Ted
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-Discuss
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN 
> Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net
> if you experience any issues.
>