[arin-discuss] [ARIN-Suggestions] New ACSP Suggestion 2014.10: CHANGES TO CANDIDATE SPEECHES

[John Curran]

On Jun 6, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Tim Huffman <Tim at bobbroadband.com> wrote:

>> (presuming that we continue with the present predominantly live candidate speeches) 
>> 
>> Should candidates be told to briefly state their own qualifications for consideration by the electorate?  Or simply told that >they've 
>> got 3 minutes, and "go for it?"   If candidates want endorsers to 
>> also speak, should they be able/encouraged to enter them as candidates as well so they get a speaking slot?
> 
> I think that stating their qualifications is a good idea, but shouldn't be a requirement. Registering people as candidates for the sole purpose of endorsing someone else seems like a very bad idea.

Good to know.

I believe what we're hearing is that if we set expectations that the 
speeches are for candidates to describe their own qualifications, then 
the electorate can decide accordingly how to handle the treat candidates 
who run endorsers or similar games.

(If there are no expectations set, then it would be hard to penalize 
something who is just following the rules.)

> If we really want to allow public endorsements (and I see no reason not to allow them), perhaps there should be an open discussion period such as the one during ARIN meetings for proposals that endorsers and detractors can use to discuss the merits of a particular candidate?

We actually have allowed online statements of support for many years, 
and these are fairly actively used in each election  -
<https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/election_archive.html
Is anything needed in addition to the present online statements of
support?   

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN