[arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Position Petitions?

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Joe Maimon wrote:
> 
> 
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> Joe Maimon wrote:
> 
>> The RIR system only works because every
>> admin on the Internet agrees that it's a Good Thing and we all work
>> together to make it work.
> 
> We are in agreement if "every" => "the vast majority of the ones that 
> matter most".
> 
>>
>> Additionally, ARIN is trying to use it's moral authority to get all
>> those admins on the Internet to voluntarily adopt IPv6.  That isn't
>> going to work if the same people ARIN is trying to push to use IPv6 are
>> pissed off at ARIN for being capricious and arbitrary.
> 
> The worst I have ever heard ARIN accused of is size bias, which even if 
> it is true, in my view was or is either inescapable or understandable.
> 
> To find a meaningful number of people who are both upset at ARIN and 
> consider IPv6 to be important is probably a non starter.
> 
> ARIN's IPv6 efforts do not in my opinion revolve around moral authority.
> 
> Were ARIN to be capricious and arbitrary, it would be best served by 
> jacking up IPv4 prices and increasing auditing while citing scarcity and 
> keeping IPv6 only somewhat less difficult to obtain. They would earn a 
> killing (perhaps literally). Oh, and do away with those pesky elections 
> and outspoken members.
> 

The fact that ARIN -is not- capricious and arbitrary merely proves my
point - everything you have said so far actually strengthens my 
assertion that what the admins think matters greatly.

> Other "community" organizations have done similar.
> 
>>
>> Your attempting to make the argument that community support for ARIN is
>> not important.  
> 
> That was not my meaning. My meaning was that the fact that the nomcom is 
> community volunteers and members, is of itself a degree of community 
> participation, sufficient or not on its own to garner community support 
> and trust.
> 

Just the fact that the nomcom is comprised of community volunteers
doesn't matter a hill of beans.  That's like saying that just because 
some misguided volunteers scuttled the "sunset clause" on a recent
proposal that the rest of us should have just rolled over and given them 
a pass because the fact that they were volunteers should have made us 
support this decision.  What matters with the nomcom is what they
decide, not who or what is doing the deciding.

>>> En masse, they could. Or it could happen by fiat. I believe(hope?) 
>>> ARIN is well aware of the icebergs they need to navigate around.
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe they are otherwise they would not have made the
>> mistake of cutting off the "sunset clause" from a recent policy
>> proposal and generating a huge flood of anger from many
>> many members.
> 
> I was willing to give them the benefit of doubt at that time

Many others were not.  So, because they were not and you were,
this invalidates their opinion and validates yours?

> and I think 
> they have reacted positively to the feedback and emotions that 
> transpired, which I would not have categorized as huge or flood-like, 
> significant as it was. People were very divided on that topic, with 
> multiple prominent positions.
> 

If they had put the sunset clause back in that would have been
positive.

They didn't, they just weathered the storm and ended up getting what
they wanted, and what half the people wanted.  The other half of
the people got screwed, epically the people who originally opposed
the "selling" proposal and only changed their opposition because of
the sunset clause.

What you and they fail to understand is that the next time an
issue comes up that is polarizing, consensus will be much harder
to get because they just handed the opposition the "remember the
sunset clause" rallying cry.

Everyone will recall what happened with
the sunset proposal and no one will want to get screwed over, so
nobody will be willing to compromise.

In other words, for the gain of being able to "sell IP addresses"
some ability to compromise on future was impacted.  Maybe ARIN will
survive this in the long run, and the ability to compromise will
be restored.  It depends on how divisive the issues are in the
future.  But it was a terribly risky gamble by the pro-selling
side to make, and most of those people don't realize
that they likely scotched something they will want in the future
that will be divisive.

>>
>> In fact I will go so far as to say that not only do -I- not think
>> they are, -THEY- don't think they are - otherwise John wouldn't be 
>> ASKING for opinions. 
> 
> This is called a lookout. Standard practice for avoiding icebergs is to 
> post one while in waters reputed to have them.
> 
>> And for this I am glad because that otherwise
>> would be a mark of hubris.
> 
> Sometimes I am amazed they put up with this crap.
> 

Is your response to opposition to swear at it?

>>>
>>> I put forth that having a flood of under-vetted candidates without 
>>> clear community support would be worse.
>>>
>>
>> How exactly does increasing the transparency of the criteria the NomCom
>> uses going to do this?
> 
> If by doing so you hamper their ability to winnow the chaff.
> 
>> I don't have a problem with the NomCom disqualifying candidates for 
>> whatever reason.
>>
>> I do have a huge problem when those "whatever reason" is shrouded in
>> secrecy.
> 
> John has noted that this has more to do with the potential confidential 
> nature of the information that goes into the process. I find that a 
> reasonable explanation, inasmuch as one is owed.
>

Why do you persist in creating these straw men?

I never said the NomCom should divulge confidential information about a
specific candidate.

I said the NomCom should issue criteria on what it thinks is a qualified
candidate.

>>
>> As of now we still don't know what criteria was used by the NomCom
>> to deny the 2 candidacies.  Someone prove to me, in the absence of
>> transparency, that they simply didn't just hang the candidate list in
>> front of a dartboard and throw darts at it.
> 
> Even without the check and balance the petition process brings, the 
> nomcom which comprises of volunteers and members of the community who 
> are publicly named should garner some degree of trust.
> 

I'm quite sure the dropped candidates do not share that assessment.

> 
> I am not in favor of having the committee be a rubber stamp or a simple 
> mark of support. I think it is important to ensure that voters have a 
> good selection of qualified trustworthy and reputable individuals running.
> 
> Without this role of the nomcom, the effort involved for every voter to 
> properly determine these attributes cannot be reasonably expected to 
> occur, potentially causing fewer voters to participate.
> 
> More importantly, the function also serves to protect ARIN (and its 
> constituency) from election gaming, which could otherwise be trivial.
> 

Sounds fine to me.  Now, please for the 3rd time, explain how the
NomCom releasing a document of what they think makes up a qualified
candidate is going to negatively impact this?

Ted

> For this purpose, dart throwing is equally as effective as the 
> good-faith professional effort that I have no difficulties believing 
> occurred, without evidence to the contrary.
> 
> With 1-2M one could quite overshadow the current voting membership. Some 
> astroturfing specialists might consider that a bargain.
> 
> I do have one point regarding the petition success consisting of 5% of 
> all eligible coming to 172.
> 
> Perhaps this number is somewhat high? Could prior voter turnout 
> percentage and participation be more meaningful measures to pull the 
> percentage from?
> 
> Joe