[arin-discuss] voting

[Howard, W. Lee]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Ted Mittelstaedt
>  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?)

I twitch whenever you say, "We all know. . ."

Maybe they seek election because someone they respect asked
them to run, and they feel an obligation of service to the 
Internet community.

> 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"

>From my reading of the IRPEP, http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html
the Board's influence on policy is limited:
The Board of Trustees will consider Advisory Council recommendations and
last call petitions at their next regularly scheduled Board meeting or
may call a Special Board Meeting for this purpose. 
The Board of Trustees may decide to return the proposal to the Advisory
Council for clarification. 
When the Board requests no further clarification for a given proposal,
it may adopt or reject the proposal. The Board of Trustees will announce
its decision with the Board of Trustees minutes.

The Board can also enact emergency policies if needed before
the next public policy meeting.

I don't see much ability to influence policy.

For that matter, the budget is approved by the Board after
vetting by staff and the Finance Committee.  There's not
all that much ability for an individual to affect money,
either.

 
> I personally would feel more comfortable knowing what the 
> Board's personal biases are.  

It would not be possible to articulate all of my opinions
on every topic that might come before the Board in a three-
year term.

> 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.

They also get stock and paychecks for their trouble.  ARIN
Board members get abused on mailing lists and reimbursement
of expenses to ARIN meetings (which in most cases would be 
reimbursed by their day jobs even if they weren't Board 
members).  Oh, and colored ribbons on their badges at public
policy meetings.
 
> 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.

I'm in favor of openness and transparency, and I'll answer any
question about my opinions or service on the Board.  I think
I'm approachable at meetings, and I go out of my way to meet
first-time attendees.

I would find a live webcast roast-a-thon, or whatever, so
intimidating that I would decline nomination to future elections.
I may not be alone in that, and I don't think that the process
needs fewer candidates.  A questionnaire from the NomCom 
inviting a brief essay on each of 3-5 questions would be fine,
but I doubt many people would read the answers.

I will point out that candidates get a few minutes to 
introduce themselves at the Fall members meeting, and that
could be enhanced.  Perhaps a few more minutes, including
time to opine on a few carefully-selected topics.

Lee



> 
> Ted