[arin-discuss] voting

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell at ufp.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:15 PM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: Paul Vixie; arin-discuss at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] voting
>

>
>After going down that long path, we can get to my real concern.  I
>would feel bad if people voted for a candidate due to their views
>on a policy topic only to find the candidate unable to do anything
>about those views due to the policy process and a lack of community
>support.  I would also be worried if a candidate was elected to the
>AC or Board because of their views chose to bend the rules on "united
>action" in an attempt to satisfy those who voted for them.  Because
>of this I think debates need to be approached very carefully; in
>particularly for the AC (who's only purview is policy, in general)
>but also for the Board.
>

The issue here is this.  The Board is made up of individuals.  We
all know that it's impossible for anyone to be truly objective on
an issue they care about (and I would assume the members of the Board
would care about at least some of the issues before the ARIN board,
else why would they even seek election?)

The concern is that unless these biases are known in advance, the
Board is subject to accusations that they are influencing policy
"behind the scenes"

Given your whois example, let's say that all Board members are
in favor of increasing whois granularity and exposure, while the
membership is still undecided.  If this is a known fact -before-
the election yet the board members are elected anyway, then when
someone on the "anti-whois" camp accuses the Board of trying to do
a rush job on pushing increased granularity on whois, the Board's
response can simply be "No, we aren't doing that but I'll point out
that you knew we were in favor of increased granularity and exposure
yet you elected us anyway"  In other words, you aren't going to
convince the person on the anti-whois camp that the Board isn't
trying to undermine his position - what you are doing, however,
is making it clear to the person that his argument is -not- with
the board, it's with the rest of the membership who is arguing
over the whois issue, and who elected the Board.

If you try to hide the Board members biases then it seems to me that
accusations of the Board trying to sneak someting behind the scenes
would influence more people, because people would always be wondering
if it were true or not, and it ends up blowing up the accusation
worse than it is.

To make an analogy, if I go accuse the President of the United States
of being a war-mongering, fiscally irresponsible leader, nobody
really cares because the President was -elected- on a platform of
war-mongering and fiscal irresponsibility.  It's old news, buddy,
and if I don't like it I need to go to the electorate and convince
all the people who voted for him to toss him out.

By contrast, if I accuse the President of the United States of being
a commie-loving, evolution-loving, closet liberal, why then I can draw lots
and lots of attention as people all focus on trying to find out if
my accusations actually hold any water or not.

I personally would feel more comfortable knowing what the Board's
personal biases are.  If the members were to say "I believe what
your doing is wrong but your the boss and I'll do my best to
implement it" then that gives me the power to decide if the
particular person really is acting as I feel they should, of if
they are acting along their own biases.  I feel a lot more comfortable
with that sort of person than with one who does their best to hide
their personal views on things and just be a "yes-man" to my
face.

I feel if the Board were to show a bit more humanity as it were, that
it would strengthen their credibility.

If you follow commercial corporate boards at all, you will probably
know that for the large public companies, the profiles of each board members
are meticulously discussed in public by a varity of stock analysts
all attempting to guess how they are going to jump next - and it
appears not to hurt their credibility at all.

It's human nature to attempt to dig into something that appears hidden,
and suspect ulterior motives.  I would suggest that the less mysterious
the ARIN board is, the less that wild accusations about it's members
will hold any water, and the less attention that will be paid to them.

Ted