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

[John Curran]

On Jun 6, 2014, at 2:47 PM, "Michael Sinatra" <michael+ppml at burnttofu.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/06/14 11:17, John Curran wrote:
>> 
>>  It's also a matter worthy of consideration as a concern about the integrity 
>>  of ARIN election processes.
> 
> John:
> 
> Let me just say that if this suggestion were implemented, or similar
> restrictions enacted, it would raise for me grave concerns about the
> ARIN election process.  Far from shoring up the integrity of the
> process, this suggestion actually undermines it.
> 
> There's a practical issue: We need to have extemporaneous candidate
> speeches for the same reason it's a good idea to have a face-to-face
> interview of a job candidate.  It gives an additional dimension, and a
> new angle on the candidate that's important to have beyond just what's
> on paper.  How a candidate uses that time tells voters a lot about that
> candidate.
> 
> If we implement this suggestion, we restrict information about the
> candidates from getting to the electorate.  Obviously, the electorate
> can't have perfect information, but any democratic process relies on the
> electorate having good information about candidates.  Restricting such
> information undermines the entire democratic process.
> 
> In the past 5 out of 6 election cycles where I have attended the
> relevant meeting, I have only seen this issue happen twice.  First,
> there is the incident that is currently under attack, and the second
> time was when a candidate needed to withdraw his candidacy and wasn't
> able to do so prior to the time of the candidate speeches.  Again, I was
> happy that the candidate explained that so that we didn't have to waste
> votes on him.
> 
> In other words, this suggestion doesn't solve a problem, but it creates
> plenty of new ones.

Yes, that is the present consensus; the reason for the discussion 
is to make sure that any concerns with the process get properly
aired, it does not mean the change must be made.

Now, with respect to guidance given to candidates, do we provide
any at all, or leave it to their judgement?   Several have indicated
that live speeches are important, but candidates should be told it
the speech is about their reason for running, qualifications, etc.  

Thoughts?
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN