From Marla.Azinger at FTR.com Tue Mar 25 12:05:47 2014 From: Marla.Azinger at FTR.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:05:47 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal Message-ID: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it's not a matter of policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can't get advice from them if desired. I propose the following be used for AC: -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add -a 6 year contiguous term limit -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. Regards Marla Azinger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Tony.Radzwon at integratelecom.com Tue Mar 25 12:15:30 2014 From: Tony.Radzwon at integratelecom.com (Radzwon, Tony) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:15:30 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> I second that?. From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:13 AM To: Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal I would support this. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 www.eclipse-networks.com 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office [Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Azinger, Marla Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:06 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can?t get advice from them if desired. I propose the following be used for AC: -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add -a 6 year contiguous term limit -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. Regards Marla Azinger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 12:15:33 2014 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:15:33 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: I support this. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Steven Ryerse < SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote: > I would support this. > > > > > > *Steven Ryerse* > > *President* > > *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338* > > *www.eclipse-networks.com * > > *770.656.1460 - Cell* > > *770.399.9099- Office* > > > > [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse > Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > > *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On > Behalf Of *Azinger, Marla > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:06 PM > *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal > > > > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. > > > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was > told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. > Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not > take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of > policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope > this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small > history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been > around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. > > > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn > out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I > also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a > non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 > years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. > Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC > folks can?t get advice from them if desired. > > > > *I propose the following be used for AC:* > > *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * > > *-a 6 year contiguous term limit * > > *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or > 6years* > > *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the > AC again.* > > > > > > > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. > However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to > create a thought out term plan and propose it. > > > > To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of > committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic > that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide > representation. > > > > > > Regards > > Marla Azinger > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 12:16:29 2014 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:16:29 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> Message-ID: One additional caveat, it needs to include the ARIN ASO AC as well. Best, -M< On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > > I support this. > > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Steven Ryerse < > SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com> wrote: > >> I would support this. >> >> >> >> >> >> *Steven Ryerse* >> >> *President* >> >> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338* >> >> *www.eclipse-networks.com * >> >> *770.656.1460 - Cell* >> >> *770.399.9099- Office* >> >> >> >> [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse >> Networks, Inc. >> >> Conquering Complex Networks? >> >> >> >> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On >> Behalf Of *Azinger, Marla >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:06 PM >> *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net >> *Subject:* [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal >> >> >> >> Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. >> >> >> >> When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was >> told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. >> Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not >> take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of >> policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope >> this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small >> history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been >> around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. >> >> >> >> I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, >> burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. >> I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as >> a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 >> years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. >> Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC >> folks can?t get advice from them if desired. >> >> >> >> *I propose the following be used for AC:* >> >> *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * >> >> *-a 6 year contiguous term limit * >> >> *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or >> 6years* >> >> *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on >> the AC again.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. >> However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to >> create a thought out term plan and propose it. >> >> >> >> To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of >> committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic >> that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide >> representation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Marla Azinger >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Marla.Azinger at FTR.com Tue Mar 25 12:32:24 2014 From: Marla.Azinger at FTR.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:32:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> Message-ID: This has nothing to do with trust. I look at the facts. History proves that just voting fails. And the downfall occurs before voting even happens. -People are less likely to run for a position on the AC knowing they are up against long time incumbents -People are less likely to run for a position on the AC knowing stagnation exists and new thought is not likely to be received well -Familiarity is comfort and subconsciously people lean toward this. True opportunity for change must be present and not just a perception. Regards Marla -----Original Message----- From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:15 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:05:47PM +0000, Azinger, Marla wrote: > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, > burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able > minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to > re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a > committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn > out, and conformity of thinking. So, why make a rule about this instead of trusting the voting members (and the people sitting) to get it right? That is, I agree with everything you say, but I don't understand why the solution to that is to make an absolute rule that can never be violated in exceptional cases. What problem are you trying to solve? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs at anvilwalrusden.com _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From ptimmins at clearrate.com Tue Mar 25 12:33:58 2014 From: ptimmins at clearrate.com (Paul Timmins) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:33:58 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>, <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> Message-ID: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can threaten the stability of the regulatory regime by forcing people with experience out of a role when their judgement may be perfectly okay and properly reflect community consensus. It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing large players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain candidate will be out of the election to cause undue influence on ARIN's policies. Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has been on the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be clouded because they've been on the BOT too long. Paul Timmins Clear Rate Communications Direct: (248) 556-4532 Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 www.clearrate.com This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately send notification by replying to the message, indicate the message was received by mistake, and then delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you. Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, Birmingham, MI 48009. ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of Radzwon, Tony [Tony.Radzwon at integratelecom.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:15 PM To: Steven Ryerse; Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal I second that?. From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:13 AM To: Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal I would support this. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 www.eclipse-networks.com 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office [Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Azinger, Marla Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:06 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can?t get advice from them if desired. I propose the following be used for AC: -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add -a 6 year contiguous term limit -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. Regards Marla Azinger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Mar 25 12:35:03 2014 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:35:03 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I would support this for both the AC and the BoT. The fact that the AC is making a recommendation on its governance and then being told that it will be tossed out and not handled by the BoT is disturbing. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. > > > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was > told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. > Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not > take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it's not a matter of > policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope > this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small > history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been > around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. > > > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn > out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I > also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a > non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 > years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. > Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC > folks can't get advice from them if desired. > > > > *I propose the following be used for AC:* > > *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * > > *-a 6 year contiguous term limit * > > *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or > 6years* > > *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the > AC again.* > > > > > > > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. > However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to > create a thought out term plan and propose it. > > > > To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of > committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic > that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide > representation. > > > > > > Regards > > Marla Azinger > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net Tue Mar 25 12:48:53 2014 From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:48:53 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>, <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: <5331B375.9070604@forethought.net> Democracy is overrated. But term limits are a bad idea. Paul notes a couple reasons - you lose talent and experience. I will add another one. When you term limit the people who are elected, power will shift to the permanent bureaucracy - the aides, the managers, etc and away from the people who are elected and accountable to the membership. Power shifting from the elected to the unelected is the precise opposite of what people hope for from term limits. On 03/25/2014 10:33 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people > repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can threaten the > stability of the regulatory regime by forcing people with experience > out of a role when their judgement may be perfectly okay and properly > reflect community consensus. > > It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing large > players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain candidate > will be out of the election to cause undue influence on ARIN's policies. > > Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has been on > the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be clouded because > they've been on the BOT too long. > > Paul Timmins > Clear Rate Communications > Direct: (248) 556-4532 > Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 > 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 > Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 > www.clearrate.com > > This message contains confidential information intended only for the > use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is > privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person > responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are > hereby notified that reading, disseminating or copying this message is > strictly prohibited. > > If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately send > notification by replying to the message, indicate the message was > received by mistake, and then delete the original message immediately > thereafter. Thank you. > > Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, > Birmingham, MI 48009. > > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 From springer at inlandnet.com Tue Mar 25 12:52:23 2014 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:52:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>, <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Paul Timmins wrote: > Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has been on the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be clouded because they've been on the BOT too > long. > > Paul Timmins > Clear Rate Communications > Direct: (248) 556-4532 > Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 > 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 > Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 > www.clearrate.com > I believe Marla was on the Advisory Council for 6 years and not the Board of Trustees. John Springer From hannigan at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 12:52:18 2014 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:52:18 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: > I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people > repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, > Paul, It would be interesting to tally the votes available to the respective bodies (all ORG-IDs). I wonder if there is some high level of self perpetuation that term limits might not actual be useful to mitigate and provide for a pro-democratic result? Best, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michael at birdhosting.com Tue Mar 25 12:54:45 2014 From: michael at birdhosting.com (Michael Wallace) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:54:45 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal Message-ID: <483742df$30fda50$6f59c9a6$@birdhosting.com> What is AC or BoT? Thanks, Michael Wallace ---------------------------------------- From: "John Brown" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:52 AM To: "Azinger, Marla" Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" , "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal I would support this for both the AC and the BoT. The fact that the AC is making a recommendation on its governance and then being told that it will be tossed out and not handled by the BoT is disturbing. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it's not a matter of policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can't get advice from them if desired. I propose the following be used for AC: -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add -a 6 year contiguous term limit -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. Regards Marla Azinger _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From matt at peterson.org Tue Mar 25 12:54:36 2014 From: matt at peterson.org (Matt Peterson) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:54:36 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I support these term limits. --Matt On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. > > > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was > told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. > Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not > take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it's not a matter of > policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope > this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small > history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been > around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. > > > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn > out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I > also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a > non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 > years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. > Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC > folks can't get advice from them if desired. > > > > *I propose the following be used for AC:* > > *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * > > *-a 6 year contiguous term limit * > > *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or > 6years* > > *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the > AC again.* > > > > > > > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. > However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to > create a thought out term plan and propose it. > > > > To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of > committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic > that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide > representation. > > > > > > Regards > > Marla Azinger > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Mar 25 12:58:11 2014 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:58:11 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: Industry capture is actually something that could be prevented by term limits. One concern I have is: Its easier to just click yes on the existing people, instead of looking at new candidates, new ideas, etc. Is there a place that shows total number of eligible voters and the actual number of votes received, trended over time. Is the membership well represented by high turn out, or is the turn out "the same old people, voting for the same people"" The President of the United States is limited to 8 years. Many States and City's have term limits on their elected representatives. Seems pretty democratic to me. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people > repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can threaten the stability of > the regulatory regime by forcing people with experience out of a role when > their judgement may be perfectly okay and properly reflect community > consensus. > > It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing large > players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain candidate will be > out of the election to cause undue influence on ARIN's policies. > > Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has been on the > BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be clouded because they've > been on the BOT too long. > > Paul Timmins > Clear Rate Communications > Direct: (248) 556-4532 > Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 > 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 > Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 > www.clearrate.com > > This message contains confidential information intended only for the > use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is > privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person > responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby > notified that reading, disseminating or copying this message is strictly > prohibited. > > If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately send > notification by replying to the message, indicate the message was received > by mistake, and then delete the original message immediately thereafter. > Thank you. > > Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, > Birmingham, MI 48009. > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on > behalf of Radzwon, Tony [Tony.Radzwon at integratelecom.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:15 PM > *To:* Steven Ryerse; Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; > arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal > > I second that?. > > > > *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On > Behalf Of *Steven Ryerse > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:13 AM > *To:* Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal > > > > I would support this. > > > > > > *Steven Ryerse* > > *President* > > *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338* > > *www.eclipse-networks.com * > > *770.656.1460 - Cell* > > *770.399.9099- Office* > > > > [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse > Networks, Inc. > > Conquering Complex Networks? > > > > *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] > *On Behalf Of *Azinger, Marla > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:06 PM > *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net > *Subject:* [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal > > > > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. > > > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was > told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. > Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not > take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of > policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope > this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small > history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been > around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. > > > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn > out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I > also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a > non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 > years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. > Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC > folks can?t get advice from them if desired. > > > > *I propose the following be used for AC:* > > *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * > > *-a 6 year contiguous term limit * > > *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or > 6years* > > *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the > AC again.* > > > > > > > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. > However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to > create a thought out term plan and propose it. > > > > To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of > committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic > that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide > representation. > > > > > > Regards > > Marla Azinger > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: not available URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Mar 25 12:59:31 2014 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:59:31 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <5331B375.9070604@forethought.net> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> <5331B375.9070604@forethought.net> Message-ID: and when you don't term limit you can trend to stagnation and entrenchment. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jawaid Bazyar < Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net> wrote: > Democracy is overrated. But term limits are a bad idea. > > Paul notes a couple reasons - you lose talent and experience. > > I will add another one. When you term limit the people who are elected, > power will shift to the permanent bureaucracy - the aides, the managers, > etc and away from the people who are elected and accountable to the > membership. Power shifting from the elected to the unelected is the precise > opposite of what people hope for from term limits. > > > On 03/25/2014 10:33 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > >> I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people >> repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can threaten the stability of >> the regulatory regime by forcing people with experience out of a role when >> their judgement may be perfectly okay and properly reflect community >> consensus. >> >> It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing large >> players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain candidate will be >> out of the election to cause undue influence on ARIN's policies. >> >> Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has been on >> the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be clouded because >> they've been on the BOT too long. >> >> Paul Timmins >> Clear Rate Communications >> Direct: (248) 556-4532 >> Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 >> 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 >> Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 >> www.clearrate.com >> >> This message contains confidential information intended only for the use >> of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is >> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person >> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby >> notified that reading, disseminating or copying this message is strictly >> prohibited. >> >> If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately send >> notification by replying to the message, indicate the message was received >> by mistake, and then delete the original message immediately thereafter. >> Thank you. >> >> Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, >> Birmingham, MI 48009. >> >> >> > -- > > Jawaid Bazyar > > President > > ph 303.815.1814 > > fax 303.815.1001 > > Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 12:59:32 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:59:32 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. > > > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was > told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. > Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not > take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it's not a matter of > policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope > this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small > history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been > around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. > > > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn > out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I > also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a > non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 > years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. > Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC > folks can't get advice from them if desired. > > > > *I propose the following be used for AC:* > > *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * > > *-a 6 year contiguous term limit* > I support term limits for the AC. From my experience 6 years is about when burnout starts to hit, so I think that's a good time to take a 1 year break. (I considered doing so myself this year, but narrowly decided against it and was re-elected for a third 3-year term.) I would word it as "two full terms", so that someone who serves a partial term can be re-elected twice and finish their second full term. *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or > 6years* > > *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the > AC again.* > I think one year off would be fine. It's also worth thinking about how we transition into term limits. If we just applied them immediately, that would probably cause more turnover than we want. One idea might be to ratchet down the number of AC members with >6 years contiguous service that can be re-elected each year. This year, four >6y incumbents could be re-elected, next year three, etc. until we get to zero (and everyone gets termed out after 6 years). Ideally, years of service to date would count toward the above (otherwise we would get no benefits to our term limits for 6 years). > > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. > However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to > create a thought out term plan and propose it. > I don't have any experience with being on the board, so I don't yet have an opinion there. -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bcornett at servlet.com Tue Mar 25 13:00:41 2014 From: bcornett at servlet.com (Bruce Cornett) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:00:41 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> Message-ID: <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> Over the years, I have participated in many non-profit boards and commissions. Term limits are a must if for nothing else but to prevent what they call "founders syndrome." We handled the issue of continuity by ensuring that terms were staggered such that there were always seasoned voices at the table. And if you want to consider governance of ARIN an extension of our Governments, it is worth nothing that term limits apply in all the American Governments. My 2 cents. Bruce Cornett Servlet Internet Services _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Tue Mar 25 13:01:45 2014 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:01:45 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> Message-ID: <5331B679.5060906@burnttofu.net> On 03/25/2014 09:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:05:47PM +0000, Azinger, Marla wrote: >> >> I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive >> stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with >> fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for >> people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving >> anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to >> stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. > > So, why make a rule about this instead of trusting the voting members > (and the people sitting) to get it right? > > That is, I agree with everything you say, but I don't understand why > the solution to that is to make an absolute rule that can never be > violated in exceptional cases. What problem are you trying to solve? This is the problem with term limits: They're inherently anti-democratic. They (further) limit the range of people for whom the voting members can support. Now, one may argue (as many political philosophers have in the past) that too much democracy is a bad thing, but grafting term limits onto an electoral process rarely counteracts the ill effects of "too much democracy." In most cases where term limits have been imposed (e.g. California, where I live), it has not reduced the influence of special interests, it has not deterred "career politicians," whether competent or not, and it has not reduced polarization. Part of the issue is that term limits don't distinguish between those who have become stagnant and those who continue to be valuable contributors. Term limits do sometimes make sense in cases where elections can't be trusted or for very high offices (e.g. heads of state). But I don't see the need for the AC. I believe that the AC members are competent and self-aware enough to know when it's time to leave. I also believe that informed voters have a similar understanding regarding the performance of the AC. michael From Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net Tue Mar 25 13:04:30 2014 From: Jawaid.Bazyar at forethought.net (Jawaid Bazyar) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:04:30 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> <5331B375.9070604@forethought.net> Message-ID: <5331B71E.1050301@forethought.net> Sometimes. But you can always unelect them :) On 03/25/2014 10:59 AM, John Brown wrote: > and when you don't term limit you can trend to stagnation and > entrenchment. > -- Jawaid Bazyar President ph 303.815.1814 fax 303.815.1001 Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 From jrdolan at mt-opticom.com Tue Mar 25 13:09:14 2014 From: jrdolan at mt-opticom.com (Jim Dolan Jr) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:09:14 -0600 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal Message-ID: <96FED794E7D81540BEF987BA6BC8B3D008EFD149@VGR-Exch2.prod.voyagerlp.com> Paul, I am not expressing an opinion on the subject at hand, and I welcome the discussion as I feel there are merits on both sides, but I read the first 2 paragraphs of your note to be that you are not in favor of term limits, then in the 3rd paragraph you state that Marla Azinger suffers clouded judgment from holding a position for too long of a term. To me that would appear you support term limits, but it is also contradictory, so can you help me understand if you are in favor of term limits or not? Jim From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Timmins Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:34 AM To: Radzwon, Tony; Steven Ryerse; Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can threaten the stability of the regulatory regime by forcing people with experience out of a role when their judgement may be perfectly okay and properly reflect community consensus. It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing large players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain candidate will be out of the election to cause undue influence on ARIN's policies. Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has been on the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be clouded because they've been on the BOT too long. Paul Timmins Clear Rate Communications Direct: (248) 556-4532 Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 www.clearrate.com This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately send notification by replying to the message, indicate the message was received by mistake, and then delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you. Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, Birmingham, MI 48009. ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of Radzwon, Tony [Tony.Radzwon at integratelecom.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:15 PM To: Steven Ryerse; Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal I second that?. From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:13 AM To: Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal I would support this. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 www.eclipse-networks.com 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Azinger, Marla Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:06 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can?t get advice from them if desired. I propose the following be used for AC: -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add -a 6 year contiguous term limit -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. Regards Marla Azinger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From ptimmins at clearrate.com Tue Mar 25 13:09:54 2014 From: ptimmins at clearrate.com (Paul Timmins) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:09:54 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <96FED794E7D81540BEF987BA6BC8B3D008EFD149@VGR-Exch2.prod.voyagerlp.com> References: <96FED794E7D81540BEF987BA6BC8B3D008EFD149@VGR-Exch2.prod.voyagerlp.com> Message-ID: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33C2ED@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> The last paragraph was tongue in cheek. From: Jim Dolan Jr [mailto:jrdolan at mt-opticom.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 1:09 PM To: Paul Timmins; Radzwon, Tony; Steven Ryerse; Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: RE: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal Paul, I am not expressing an opinion on the subject at hand, and I welcome the discussion as I feel there are merits on both sides, but I read the first 2 paragraphs of your note to be that you are not in favor of term limits, then in the 3rd paragraph you state that Marla Azinger suffers clouded judgment from holding a position for too long of a term. To me that would appear you support term limits, but it is also contradictory, so can you help me understand if you are in favor of term limits or not? Jim From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Paul Timmins Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:34 AM To: Radzwon, Tony; Steven Ryerse; Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can threaten the stability of the regulatory regime by forcing people with experience out of a role when their judgement may be perfectly okay and properly reflect community consensus. It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing large players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain candidate will be out of the election to cause undue influence on ARIN's policies. Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has been on the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be clouded because they've been on the BOT too long. Paul Timmins Clear Rate Communications Direct: (248) 556-4532 Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 www.clearrate.com This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating or copying this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately send notification by replying to the message, indicate the message was received by mistake, and then delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you. Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, Birmingham, MI 48009. ________________________________ From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of Radzwon, Tony [Tony.Radzwon at integratelecom.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:15 PM To: Steven Ryerse; Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal I second that?. From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:13 AM To: Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal I would support this. Steven Ryerse President 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 www.eclipse-networks.com 770.656.1460 - Cell 770.399.9099- Office [Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse Networks, Inc. Conquering Complex Networks? From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Azinger, Marla Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:06 PM To: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can?t get advice from them if desired. I propose the following be used for AC: -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add -a 6 year contiguous term limit -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. Regards Marla Azinger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 13:21:23 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:21:23 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <483742df$30fda50$6f59c9a6$@birdhosting.com> References: <483742df$30fda50$6f59c9a6$@birdhosting.com> Message-ID: The AC is the ARIN Advisory Council: https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac.html The BoT is the ARIN Board of Trustees: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot.html -Scott On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Michael Wallace wrote: > What is AC or BoT? > > Thanks, > > Michael Wallace > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "John Brown" > *Sent*: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:52 AM > *To*: "Azinger, Marla" > *Cc*: "arin-discuss at arin.net" , "arin-ppml at arin.net" > > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal > > I would support this for both the AC and the BoT. > > The fact that the AC is making a recommendation on its governance and then > being told that it will be tossed out and not handled by the BoT is > disturbing. > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: > >> Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. >> >> >> >> When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was >> told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. >> Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not >> take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it's not a matter of >> policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope >> this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small >> history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been >> around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. >> >> >> >> I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, >> burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. >> I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as >> a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 >> years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. >> Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC >> folks can't get advice from them if desired. >> >> >> >> *I propose the following be used for AC:* >> >> *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * >> >> *-a 6 year contiguous term limit * >> >> *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or >> 6years* >> >> *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on >> the AC again.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. >> However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to >> create a thought out term plan and propose it. >> >> >> >> To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of >> committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic >> that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide >> representation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Marla Azinger >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hcrowder at empiricalnetworks.com Tue Mar 25 13:21:31 2014 From: hcrowder at empiricalnetworks.com (Harry Crowder) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:21:31 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <483742df$30fda50$6f59c9a6$@birdhosting.com> References: <483742df$30fda50$6f59c9a6$@birdhosting.com> Message-ID: <0bca01cf484e$ab1b5d60$01521820$@empiricalnetworks.com> Advisor Council or Board of Trustees From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Michael Wallace Sent: March 25, 2014 11:55 AM To: John Brown; Azinger, Marla Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net; arin-ppml at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal What is AC or BoT? Thanks, Michael Wallace _____ From: "John Brown" Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:52 AM To: "Azinger, Marla" Cc: "arin-discuss at arin.net" , "arin-ppml at arin.net" Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal I would support this for both the AC and the BoT. The fact that the AC is making a recommendation on its governance and then being told that it will be tossed out and not handled by the BoT is disturbing. On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it's not a matter of policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can't get advice from them if desired. I propose the following be used for AC: -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add -a 6 year contiguous term limit -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. Regards Marla Azinger _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cja at daydream.com Tue Mar 25 13:23:40 2014 From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:23:40 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <483742df$30fda50$6f59c9a6$@birdhosting.com> References: <483742df$30fda50$6f59c9a6$@birdhosting.com> Message-ID: Here are links that will answer your questions about the AC and the BoT https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot.html https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac.html ---Cathy On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Michael Wallace wrote: > What is AC or BoT? > > Thanks, > > Michael Wallace > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "John Brown" > *Sent*: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:52 AM > *To*: "Azinger, Marla" > *Cc*: "arin-discuss at arin.net" , "arin-ppml at arin.net" > > > *Subject*: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal > > I would support this for both the AC and the BoT. > > The fact that the AC is making a recommendation on its governance and then > being told that it will be tossed out and not handled by the BoT is > disturbing. > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: > >> Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. >> >> >> >> When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was >> told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. >> Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not >> take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it's not a matter of >> policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope >> this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small >> history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been >> around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. >> >> >> >> I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, >> burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. >> I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as >> a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 >> years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. >> Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC >> folks can't get advice from them if desired. >> >> >> >> *I propose the following be used for AC:* >> >> *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * >> >> *-a 6 year contiguous term limit * >> >> *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or >> 6years* >> >> *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on >> the AC again.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. >> However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to >> create a thought out term plan and propose it. >> >> >> >> To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of >> committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic >> that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide >> representation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Marla Azinger >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cja at daydream.com Tue Mar 25 13:39:18 2014 From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:39:18 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: John The ARIN website has all the data you refer to here. It even has how many votes each candidate got in each election. You can also google "ARIN election results " to find a particular year. ----Cathy On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:58 PM, John Brown wrote: > Industry capture is actually something that could be prevented by term > limits. > > One concern I have is: Its easier to just click yes on the existing > people, instead of looking at new candidates, new ideas, etc. > > Is there a place that shows total number of eligible voters and the actual > number of votes received, trended over time. Is the membership well > represented by high turn out, or is the turn out "the same old people, > voting for the same people"" > > The President of the United States is limited to 8 years. > Many States and City's have term limits on their elected representatives. > Seems pretty democratic to me. > > > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > >> I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people >> repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can threaten the stability of >> the regulatory regime by forcing people with experience out of a role when >> their judgement may be perfectly okay and properly reflect community >> consensus. >> >> It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing large >> players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain candidate will be >> out of the election to cause undue influence on ARIN's policies. >> >> Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has been on >> the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be clouded because >> they've been on the BOT too long. >> >> Paul Timmins >> Clear Rate Communications >> Direct: (248) 556-4532 >> Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 >> 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 >> Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 >> www.clearrate.com >> >> This message contains confidential information intended only for the >> use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is >> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person >> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby >> notified that reading, disseminating or copying this message is strictly >> prohibited. >> >> If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately send >> notification by replying to the message, indicate the message was received >> by mistake, and then delete the original message immediately thereafter. >> Thank you. >> >> Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, >> Birmingham, MI 48009. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on >> behalf of Radzwon, Tony [Tony.Radzwon at integratelecom.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:15 PM >> *To:* Steven Ryerse; Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; >> arin-discuss at arin.net >> *Subject:* Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal >> >> I second that?. >> >> >> >> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Ryerse >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:13 AM >> *To:* Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net >> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal >> >> >> >> I would support this. >> >> >> >> >> >> *Steven Ryerse* >> >> *President* >> >> *100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338* >> >> *www.eclipse-networks.com * >> >> *770.656.1460 <770.656.1460> - Cell* >> >> *770.399.9099 <770.399.9099>- Office* >> >> >> >> [image: Description: Description: Eclipse Networks Logo_small.png]? Eclipse >> Networks, Inc. >> >> Conquering Complex Networks? >> >> >> >> *From:* arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] >> *On Behalf Of *Azinger, Marla >> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:06 PM >> *To:* arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net >> *Subject:* [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal >> >> >> >> Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. >> >> >> >> When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was >> told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. >> Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not >> take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of >> policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope >> this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small >> history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been >> around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. >> >> >> >> I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, >> burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. >> I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as >> a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 >> years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. >> Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC >> folks can?t get advice from them if desired. >> >> >> >> *I propose the following be used for AC:* >> >> *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * >> >> *-a 6 year contiguous term limit * >> >> *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or >> 6years* >> >> *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on >> the AC again.* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. >> However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to >> create a thought out term plan and propose it. >> >> >> >> To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of >> committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic >> that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide >> representation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Marla Azinger >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1468 bytes Desc: not available URL: From springer at inlandnet.com Tue Mar 25 15:28:45 2014 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> Message-ID: Hi Bruce, Thank you very much for this contribution. Further comments below. On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Bruce Cornett wrote: > And if you want to consider governance of ARIN an extension of our > Governments, it is worth nothing that term limits apply in all the American > Governments. > > My 2 cents. > > Bruce Cornett > Servlet Internet Services > Even if I don't want to consider governance of ARIN to be an extension of our city, county, state or federal goverments (and I don't), I believe that this notation is mistaken (reading 'nothing' as noting). Many major electoral offices in American Governments are free from term limits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States I hope I am understanding you correctly. John Springer From kyle at wirestar.net Tue Mar 25 15:30:46 2014 From: kyle at wirestar.net (Kyle Leissner) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:30:46 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Unsubscribe Message-ID: <83c81402dc6d4a30b62cd38bf8ca93e2@BY2PR06MB092.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jesse at la-broadband.com Tue Mar 25 15:32:03 2014 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse Geddis) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:32:03 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com>, <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: I think term limits are fabulous both for the BoT and the AC. Paul, That was an interesting read. You and one other have already commented on the third item but I think the second item cancels itself out. One could argue just as effectively both sides of it given: A. Each AC term is already a predefined length allowing any "large player? (or any player for that matter) time to target specific individuals as it is public knowledge when every term will end. In fact, that target date is listed in the last sentence of every AC member. https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac.html B. Given the absence of term limits one could just as easily argue the opposite of your suggestion regarding inappropriate industry influence. Having a member on the board for so long paints a very attractive target for any ?large player? to work on persuading. In fact, i believe this very reason most folks tend to argue for term limits, not a reason against them. I believe having fixed term limits for both positions will mitigate the impact of all of your concerns. It limits the damage that can be caused by someone who is ?bought? before or after winning a seat with a fixed length term. In my experience, in going through these elections myself, it isn?t an issue of money. It isn?t necessarily even an issue of ideas, nor is it an issue of experience. It is more an issue of popularity. I also agree with those who said the incumbent always has a very decisive and inherent advantage over any unknown quantity. In reading through the profiles Marla?s suggestion appears to impact the following AC members: Dan Alexander who has been on the AC since 2005 Cathy Aronson who has been on the AC since 2001 Bill Darte who has been on the AC since 1997 Owen DeLong who has been on the AC since 2007 David Farmer who has been on the AC since 2008 Stacy Hughes who has been on the AC since 2002 Scott Leibrand who has been on the AC since 2007 Heather Schiller who has been on the AC since 2006 Robert Seastrom who has been on the AC since 2003 John Sweeting who has been on the AC since 2008 I agree with Scott Leibrand in that it will impact a decent chunk of representatives (2/3rds). However, 1/3 (5) are already up for re-election this year, less than a third (4) are up for re-election next year, and more than a third (6) are up for re-election in 2016. I don?t personally see any harm in it?s immediate implementation. Jesse On Mar 25, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can threaten the stability of the regulatory regime by forcing people with experience out of a role when their judgement may be perfectly okay and properly reflect community consensus. > > It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing large players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain candidate will be out of the election to cause undue influence on ARIN's policies. > > Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has been on the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be clouded because they've been on the BOT too long. > > Paul Timmins > Clear Rate Communications > Direct: (248) 556-4532 > Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 > 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 > Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 > www.clearrate.com > > This message contains confidential information intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating or copying this message is strictly prohibited. > > If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately send notification by replying to the message, indicate the message was received by mistake, and then delete the original message immediately thereafter. Thank you. > > Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, Birmingham, MI 48009. > > > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of Radzwon, Tony [Tony.Radzwon at integratelecom.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:15 PM > To: Steven Ryerse; Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal > > I second that?. > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Steven Ryerse > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:13 AM > To: Azinger, Marla; arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal > > I would support this. > > > Steven Ryerse > President > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA 30338 > www.eclipse-networks.com > 770.656.1460 - Cell > 770.399.9099- Office > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > Conquering Complex Networks? > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Azinger, Marla > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:06 PM > To: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net > Subject: [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal > > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can?t get advice from them if desired. > > I propose the following be used for AC: > -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add > -a 6 year contiguous term limit > -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years > -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. > > > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. > > To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. > > > Regards > Marla Azinger > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rmilton at mvsusa.com Tue Mar 25 15:35:17 2014 From: rmilton at mvsusa.com (Ryan Milton) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:35:17 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Unsubscribe Message-ID: From: Kyle Leissner > Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM To: "arin-discuss at arin.net" > Subject: [arin-discuss] Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From springer at inlandnet.com Tue Mar 25 15:51:10 2014 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi Marla, The current PDP requires only two things for a policy proposal to be accepted as a Draft Policy, to have a clear problem statement and be in scope for the AC. I am sure all AC members will be delighted to work with you to arrive at the former. I am less sure how successful we will be getting around a clear statement from the BoT that such matters are not in scope. We can certainly give it a shot if that is the way you would prefer to go. Alternately, all members of the Board of Trustees read these lists, perhaps they may take the matter up directly from here? Or they may prefer to receive the question via the suggestion process? https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/ The AC has had some recent experience with adopting changes to standing rules. Perhaps that might be an option. There does appear to be a healthy amount of initial support for your idea. How would you like to proceed? John Springer On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Azinger, Marla wrote: > > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC.?? > > ? > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit.? At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take.? No action was taken.? Later I inquired on > this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action.? I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of policy. ?Now with time and reviewing > other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done.? I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term > measures has been around for a? while but for some reason never gained traction. > > ? > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds.? I also believe a solid > 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup.? Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, > burn out, and conformity of thinking.? Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can?t get advice from them if desired. > > ? > > I propose the following be used for AC: > > -Keep the 3 year terms in place ?and add > > -a 6 year contiguous term limit > > -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years > > -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. > > ? > > ? > > ? > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits.? However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan > and propose it. ? > > ? > > To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements.? This should be a separate topic that also needs > discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. ? > > ? > > ? > > Regards > > Marla Azinger > > > From michael+ppml at burnttofu.net Tue Mar 25 16:06:53 2014 From: michael+ppml at burnttofu.net (Michael Sinatra) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:06:53 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> <5331B375.9070604@forethought.net> Message-ID: <5331E1DD.5010009@burnttofu.net> On 03/25/2014 09:59, John Brown wrote: > and when you don't term limit you can trend to stagnation and entrenchment. And when you *do* term limit, you can trend to stagnation and entrenchment. In the city where I live, we have term limits on the mayor, who can only serve two four-year terms. Back in the early 2000s we had a mayor who was competent, smart, energetic, and did a lot to help develop the city. Some of his plans weren't without controversy, but they did move the city in what most people consider to be a better direction. The areas he targeted for redevelopment have received positive national and even international coverage. But he was termed out after two terms. The next elected mayor was the picture of stagnation and entrenchment. He did _nothing_. It's not clear he even knew he was the mayor.[1] Fortunately, he was too lazy to run for a second term. Our current mayor is arguably not much better. She's of questionable competence, has been accused of cronyism, and has managed to alienate large parts of the city. My personal view is that she's not horrible, but she's not as good as what we had back in the early 2000s. Applying this thinking to the AC, how do term limits help the situation? The longest-serving AC members are about as independent from industry meddling as one can be. Forcing them out due to term limits would not only rob the AC of their knowledge and experience, it would open the door to filling their roles with industry-propped candidates. And the big players can easily overcome term limits by simply rotating members of their large staffs through as others become termed out, whereas smaller players cannot do that. Those concerned about the undue influence of the "big guys" should be very worried about term limits. Term limits as a concept is certainly interesting and it sounds nice until you really start to think it through (or experience its effects). It has a wonderful populist overtone (if you actually like populism) but actually takes power away from the people. Anyway, sorry for the long note. I am done now. michael [1] http://oaklandunseen.tumblr.com/post/34857548712/ron-dellums (yes, it's supposed to be a joke, but there's a reason it's actually funny) > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jawaid Bazyar > > > wrote: > > Democracy is overrated. But term limits are a bad idea. > > Paul notes a couple reasons - you lose talent and experience. > > I will add another one. When you term limit the people who are > elected, power will shift to the permanent bureaucracy - the aides, > the managers, etc and away from the people who are elected and > accountable to the membership. Power shifting from the elected to > the unelected is the precise opposite of what people hope for from > term limits. > > > On 03/25/2014 10:33 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: > > I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where > people repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can > threaten the stability of the regulatory regime by forcing > people with experience out of a role when their judgement may be > perfectly okay and properly reflect community consensus. > > It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing > large players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain > candidate will be out of the election to cause undue influence > on ARIN's policies. > > Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has > been on the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be > clouded because they've been on the BOT too long. > > Paul Timmins > Clear Rate Communications > Direct: (248) 556-4532 > Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 > 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 > Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 > www.clearrate.com > > This message contains confidential information intended only for > the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information > that is privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or > the person responsible for delivering it to the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating > or copying this message is strictly prohibited. > > If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately > send notification by replying to the message, indicate the > message was received by mistake, and then delete the original > message immediately thereafter. Thank you. > > Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, > Birmingham, MI 48009. > > > > -- > > Jawaid Bazyar > > President > > ph 303.815.1814 > > fax 303.815.1001 > > Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net > > Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 > > _________________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net > ). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/__listinfo/arin-discuss > > Please contact info at arin.net if you > experience any issues. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 16:08:09 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:08:09 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <1140325153044.18890C-100000@Ives.egh.com> References: <5331B679.5060906@burnttofu.net> <1140325153044.18890C-100000@Ives.egh.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, John Santos wrote: > > I agree with Michael's reasoning for the most part, and generally oppose > term limits. > > One caveat that no one has mentioned: in a volunteer run organization like > ARIN, people in leadership postitions may be pressured into continuing, > through direct arguments ("We need you there!") or implicict assumptions > by others that they will continue, or by a sense of responsibility ("If I > don't do this, who will?"), and may find it hard to choose not to run for > re-election even when they feel burned out and non-productive. Yes, I've seen that first-hand. > A term limit would give such people a convenient out. > It would also give them a push toward taking a year off and reconsidering whether they are interested in getting involved again. (I prefer 1 year off vs. 3.) > > A good test for this is whether there are there usually enough candidates > for all the positions or does some sort of nominating committee need to > drum them up? We have had both situations recently. Unfortunately, in years where there are enough candidates, the nominations committee generally limits the number of candidates who go on the ballot. This means that if one or more candidates pulls out of the election after the nomcom has finished its work, we sometimes end up with too few new candidates to pose a serious challenge to incumbents. > If there are plenty of candidates to choose from, a > person at the end of their productive tenure can easily not run again > knowing there are good and eager candidates to replace them. I think we have enough candidates to allow that pretty much every year. > Also, an entrenched but non-productive person will likely be replaced. I can't remember ever seeing this happen. I don't have the statistics, but I believe almost all incumbent AC members (productive or not) leave by resigning, not by losing an election. -Scott > If there is a dearth of candidates, then neither of these is true. > > As I am not a "member" (in the formal sense, paying dues and being able > to vote), I don't know which of these situations prevails in ARIN. > > > On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Michael Sinatra wrote: > > > On 03/25/2014 09:15, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 04:05:47PM +0000, Azinger, Marla wrote: > > >> > > >> I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive > > >> stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with > > >> fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for > > >> people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving > > >> anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to > > >> stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. > > > > > > So, why make a rule about this instead of trusting the voting members > > > (and the people sitting) to get it right? > > > > > > That is, I agree with everything you say, but I don't understand why > > > the solution to that is to make an absolute rule that can never be > > > violated in exceptional cases. What problem are you trying to solve? > > > > This is the problem with term limits: They're inherently > > anti-democratic. They (further) limit the range of people for whom the > > voting members can support. Now, one may argue (as many political > > philosophers have in the past) that too much democracy is a bad thing, > > but grafting term limits onto an electoral process rarely counteracts > > the ill effects of "too much democracy." In most cases where term > > limits have been imposed (e.g. California, where I live), it has not > > reduced the influence of special interests, it has not deterred "career > > politicians," whether competent or not, and it has not reduced > polarization. > > > > Part of the issue is that term limits don't distinguish between those > > who have become stagnant and those who continue to be valuable > contributors. > > > > Term limits do sometimes make sense in cases where elections can't be > > trusted or for very high offices (e.g. heads of state). But I don't see > > the need for the AC. I believe that the AC members are competent and > > self-aware enough to know when it's time to leave. I also believe that > > informed voters have a similar understanding regarding the performance > > of the AC. > > > > michael > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PPML > > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > > -- > John Santos > Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. > 781-861-0670 ext 539 > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bcornett at servlet.com Tue Mar 25 16:21:08 2014 From: bcornett at servlet.com (Bruce Cornett) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:21:08 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <5331E1DD.5010009@burnttofu.net> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> <5331B375.9070604@forethought.net> <5331E1DD.5010009@burnttofu.net> Message-ID: <5331E534.2090904@servlet.com> I suppose I was too quick to apply my experience with my own region and my experience with non-profits to this case. But there are times when I wish an incumbent would be allowed to stay. I even lobbied for such a bill in Ohio once. But at the same time there are many that simply stayed on too long. Maybe a solution that meets both needs is to create several classes of terms - some for 3 years - some for 6 - each good for a couple of reelections. This provides a very long institutional memory for any organization. Bruce C On 03/25/2014 04:06 PM, Michael Sinatra wrote: > On 03/25/2014 09:59, John Brown wrote: >> and when you don't term limit you can trend to stagnation and entrenchment. > And when you *do* term limit, you can trend to stagnation and entrenchment. > > In the city where I live, we have term limits on the mayor, who can only > serve two four-year terms. Back in the early 2000s we had a mayor who > was competent, smart, energetic, and did a lot to help develop the city. > Some of his plans weren't without controversy, but they did move the > city in what most people consider to be a better direction. The areas > he targeted for redevelopment have received positive national and even > international coverage. But he was termed out after two terms. The > next elected mayor was the picture of stagnation and entrenchment. He > did _nothing_. It's not clear he even knew he was the mayor.[1] > Fortunately, he was too lazy to run for a second term. > > Our current mayor is arguably not much better. She's of questionable > competence, has been accused of cronyism, and has managed to alienate > large parts of the city. My personal view is that she's not horrible, > but she's not as good as what we had back in the early 2000s. > > Applying this thinking to the AC, how do term limits help the situation? > The longest-serving AC members are about as independent from industry > meddling as one can be. Forcing them out due to term limits would not > only rob the AC of their knowledge and experience, it would open the > door to filling their roles with industry-propped candidates. And the > big players can easily overcome term limits by simply rotating members > of their large staffs through as others become termed out, whereas > smaller players cannot do that. Those concerned about the undue > influence of the "big guys" should be very worried about term limits. > > Term limits as a concept is certainly interesting and it sounds nice > until you really start to think it through (or experience its effects). > It has a wonderful populist overtone (if you actually like populism) > but actually takes power away from the people. > > Anyway, sorry for the long note. I am done now. > > michael > > [1] http://oaklandunseen.tumblr.com/post/34857548712/ron-dellums (yes, > it's supposed to be a joke, but there's a reason it's actually funny) > >> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jawaid Bazyar >> > >> wrote: >> >> Democracy is overrated. But term limits are a bad idea. >> >> Paul notes a couple reasons - you lose talent and experience. >> >> I will add another one. When you term limit the people who are >> elected, power will shift to the permanent bureaucracy - the aides, >> the managers, etc and away from the people who are elected and >> accountable to the membership. Power shifting from the elected to >> the unelected is the precise opposite of what people hope for from >> term limits. >> >> >> On 03/25/2014 10:33 AM, Paul Timmins wrote: >> >> I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where >> people repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, and can >> threaten the stability of the regulatory regime by forcing >> people with experience out of a role when their judgement may be >> perfectly okay and properly reflect community consensus. >> >> It also can promote inappropriate industry influence by allowing >> large players to target roles well in advance knowing a certain >> candidate will be out of the election to cause undue influence >> on ARIN's policies. >> >> Additionally, the proposal is being floated by someone who has >> been on the BOT for 6 years, and thus their judgement may be >> clouded because they've been on the BOT too long. >> >> Paul Timmins >> Clear Rate Communications >> Direct: (248) 556-4532 >> Customer Support: (877) 877-4799 >> 24 Hour Repair: (866) 366-4665 >> Network Operations: (877) 877-1250 >> www.clearrate.com >> >> This message contains confidential information intended only for >> the use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information >> that is privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or >> the person responsible for delivering it to the intended >> recipient, you are hereby notified that reading, disseminating >> or copying this message is strictly prohibited. >> >> If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately >> send notification by replying to the message, indicate the >> message was received by mistake, and then delete the original >> message immediately thereafter. Thank you. >> >> Clear Rate Communications, Inc. 555 S. Old Woodward, Suite 600, >> Birmingham, MI 48009. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jawaid Bazyar >> >> President >> >> ph 303.815.1814 >> >> fax 303.815.1001 >> >> Jawaid.Bazyar at foreThought.net >> >> Note our new address: 2347 Curtis St, Denver CO 80205 >> >> _________________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net >> ). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/__listinfo/arin-discuss >> >> Please contact info at arin.net if you >> experience any issues. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ARIN-Discuss >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From spiffnolee at yahoo.com Tue Mar 25 17:39:05 2014 From: spiffnolee at yahoo.com (Lee Howard) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> Message-ID: <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Could somebody state more clearly what problem this proposal is trying to solve?? I've heard that "organizations tend toward entrenchment" but not that ARIN has.? Is the community stagnant?? Is the AC unresponsive to evolving thought in the region?? Is the Board inaccessible?? What problem would be solved by having new people in those positions? > Term limits are a must if for nothing else but to prevent > what they call "founders syndrome." ? There's only one founding Board member still at ARIN, and he's on the Board ex-officio: John Curran.? Only Bill Woodcock has more than ten years' tenure. I was a Board member for three years, lost re-election, took a year off, then ran again and won.? Two terms later, I lost re-election.? I'm not the only one: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot_former.html 15 former Board members (counting myself only twice) for an organization that's 16(?) years old doesn't seem stagnant to me. See also the very long list of former AC members: https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac_former.html Is it really 46 former AC members? Looks to me like there's turnover already.? If we need more churn, I would want to understand what's broken. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From billdarte at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 18:22:16 2014 From: billdarte at gmail.com (Bill Darte) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:22:16 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Being the poster-child of offense to those who consider term-limits a good idea.... finishing my 5th elected term(and last) this year....I assure you I am not replying out of guilt. I reflect on a quote by Daniel Defoe. "All evils are to be considered with the good that is in them, and with what worse attends them." I do not object to term limits on either the AC or BoT, but believe as Defoe apparently did, that there is good news and bad news in everything. Those for and against term limits continue to weigh in with good examples and perspective. >From personal perspective, I consider that I have contributed more and less than other members of the AC in past years and largely in different ways and with different experience and point of view. I say frankly that I would have refused to stand for election had a single person ever suggested that I not. Indeed, I determined to retire two terms ago, but was urged to stand again and again by members of the community whom I know and trust. Incidentally, I believe I garnered more votes than any other candidate in every election save a single person in 2005. So, I am ambivalent. Many may have wished I had not run for any of my terms, but those voices were silent (at least to me) and the voting record of those who have been engaged in that process have told a different story. Presumably each one reviewed candidate credentials and heard them state the case for their candidacy standing before the community. You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time.....were all those people fools or fooled by my good looks and charisma? I hardly think that is the case. I deeply respect the community that contributes to and serves the mission of ARIN.... and who voted for and against me. Again, I think there is a good case for either future in the election process, and I too think this debate is healthy and substantive and is consistent with our bottom-up, grass roots governance model where everyone's vote counts. But, I have a question about what happens to those who are elected to fill the remainder of another member's term? Is that considered a term or can they have two more thereafter? If not the later, then I suspect that those interested in being on the AC or BoT might not stand for election or be unwilling to accept election in years when this is an issue. bd On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. > > > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was > told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. > Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not > take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it's not a matter of > policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope > this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small > history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been > around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. > > > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn > out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I > also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a > non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 > years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. > Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC > folks can't get advice from them if desired. > > > > *I propose the following be used for AC:* > > *-Keep the 3 year terms in place and add * > > *-a 6 year contiguous term limit * > > *-a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or > 6years* > > *-After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the > AC again.* > > > > > > > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. > However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to > create a thought out term plan and propose it. > > > > To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of > committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic > that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide > representation. > > > > > > Regards > > Marla Azinger > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Tue Mar 25 19:05:08 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:05:08 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes from resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare that an incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an AC member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues on the AC, both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is re-electing members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting the benefit of new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide. Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, I see: Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes 2013 4 1 1 2012 4 1 1 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected 2010 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected 2009 3 2 1 2008 2 3 2007 3 2 As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on the ballot. I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly sacrificing experience and continuity. Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto the AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea I just had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from PPML participants that is published for the ARIN membership to review when casting their votes? -Scott On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Lee Howard wrote: > Could somebody state more clearly what problem this proposal is trying to > solve? I've heard that "organizations tend toward entrenchment" but not > that ARIN has. Is the community stagnant? Is the AC unresponsive to > evolving thought in the region? Is the Board inaccessible? What problem > would be solved by having new people in those positions? > > > Term limits are a must if for nothing else but to prevent > > what they call "founders syndrome." > > There's only one founding Board member still at ARIN, and he's on the > Board ex-officio: John Curran. Only Bill Woodcock has more than ten years' > tenure. > > I was a Board member for three years, lost re-election, took a year off, > then ran again and won. Two terms later, I lost re-election. I'm not the > only one: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot_former.html > 15 former Board members (counting myself only twice) for an organization > that's 16(?) years old doesn't seem stagnant to me. > > See also the very long list of former AC members: > https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac_former.html > Is it really 46 former AC members? > > Looks to me like there's turnover already. If we need more churn, I would > want to understand what's broken. > > Lee > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at quonix.net Tue Mar 25 20:08:29 2014 From: john at quonix.net (John Von Essen) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:08:29 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <23B2D6DA-7BF0-4199-9564-7CE838DE028F@quonix.net> I support this. I think 6 years is a very long period of time when taken into context. Things change very rapidly in the "internet" space and 6 years is at least a generation or two of significant technological evolution (i.e. think about the surge in IP usage relating to cloud services over the last 6 years). New blood is needed since I personally feel that people are naturally slow to change themselves. A compromise would be to make the "off" time 1 year, so you could go 6 years on, 1 year off, then back for another 6 years. This way you force new blood in, but if long standing individuals are right for the job, they can quickly get back in the game. John Von Essen VP of Operations Quonix, Inc. www.essenz.com On Mar 25, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote: > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit. At the time I was told this was an action the BOT would have to take. No action was taken. Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the BOT did not take action. I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of policy. Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done. I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a while but for some reason never gained traction. > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able minds. I also believe a solid 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person and regroup. Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking. Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can?t get advice from them if desired. > > I propose the following be used for AC: > -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add > -a 6 year contiguous term limit > -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years > -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. > > > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits. However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. > > To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion of committee member candidate requirements. This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. > > > Regards > Marla Azinger > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Mar 26 01:57:21 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:57:21 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: <2C914EB7-8F78-475F-B507-967423A39976@delong.com> Speaking only for myself as one of the often more controversial members of the AC, I will say that I have been pleasantly surprised each time I have been re-elected. While I do vote for myself when applicable, I only have the ability to cast 3 votes as I am the DMR for three organizations, all ISPs, two of which are pretty small. As such, I think it is pretty hard to make the case for self-perpetuation. The number resources I hold do not have voting rights as I have chosen not to pay an additional $500 for that privilege. Personally, I think it is a travesty that non-ISP resource holders do not get voting rights without paying an additional fee. I have brought this up many times, but it hasn?t gone anywhere. At the risk of sounding self-serving, I oppose term limits for the same reasons already articulated by Paul. Owen On Mar 25, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Martin Hannigan wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: > I have concerns that forcing people out of a position where people repeatedly vote for them is undemocratic, > > Paul, > > It would be interesting to tally the votes available to the respective bodies (all ORG-IDs). I wonder if there is some high level of self perpetuation that term limits might not actual be useful to mitigate and provide for a pro-democratic result? > > Best, > > -M< > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Mar 26 02:31:41 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:31:41 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <7B6C6758-DEA8-441F-BC06-A1060525FD91@delong.com> On Mar 25, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Bill Darte wrote: > Being the poster-child of offense to those who consider term-limits a good idea.... finishing my 5th elected term(and last) this year....I assure you I am not replying out of guilt. In my opinion, this is sad news, indeed. You continue to be a very valuable member of the AC and I believe we and the community have benefited greatly from your input, wisdom, and experience over the years. You are about the least stagnant person I know in that in my experience you have always been open to new ideas and eager to change your thinking in light of new information. Indeed, if you wanted to run again, I would consider you the poster child for why term limits are a bad idea. Owen From jesse at la-broadband.com Wed Mar 26 03:59:00 2014 From: jesse at la-broadband.com (Jesse Geddis) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:59:00 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <7B6C6758-DEA8-441F-BC06-A1060525FD91@delong.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <7B6C6758-DEA8-441F-BC06-A1060525FD91@delong.com> Message-ID: <0FABB0D4-E610-4A09-BB8F-B754EAD7EA5F@la-broadband.com> I haven?t seen anyone mention Mr. Darte or any other AC member outside of my listing of who?s seats would be impacted. Indeed, this is a question of policy and not a personal attack. Getting all sappy and dramatic and trying to make it personal only serves to divert everyone from a serious policy conversation. No one has questioned any individual?s service and only spoken in broad terms. John Springer has already outlined the procedure (attached) to the list. I suggest we table the thread on the list lest it get any worse and follow the suggested procedure. Marla, are you good moving forward on what john mentioned? -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: John Springer Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 12:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Size: 7255 URL: -------------- next part -------------- Sincerely, Jesse On Mar 25, 2014, at 11:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Mar 25, 2014, at 3:22 PM, Bill Darte wrote: > >> Being the poster-child of offense to those who consider term-limits a good idea.... finishing my 5th elected term(and last) this year....I assure you I am not replying out of guilt. > > In my opinion, this is sad news, indeed. You continue to be a very valuable member of the AC and I believe we and the community have benefited greatly from your input, wisdom, and experience over the years. You are about the least stagnant person I know in that in my experience you have always been open to new ideas and eager to change your thinking in light of new information. > > Indeed, if you wanted to run again, I would consider you the poster child for why term limits are a bad idea. > > Owen > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From cgrundemann at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 06:04:58 2014 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:04:58 +0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5B9E90747FA2974D91A54FCFA1B8AD1201528E278E@ENI-MAIL.eclipse-networks.com> <68B45AC82AE0E249A2BF5C40ABA75F5D14886EE0@IDCPRDMBX1.ads.integratelecom.com> <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415C33B8EA@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:58 AM, John Brown wrote: > Industry capture is actually something that could be prevented by term > limits. > Exactly the opposite is quite possible, actually. As has been pointed out already, large organizations can throw a new person into the election (or large groups of new people even) every time they lose one to term limits (it's not hard when you have 100,000 employees) - small orgs don't have the manpower to do this (they likely only have one person even qualified for the position). Hence term limits could actually help foster industry capture. > > One concern I have is: Its easier to just click yes on the existing > people, instead of looking at new candidates, new ideas, etc. > Fighting laziness with stupidity seems like a losing battle no matter the outcome... > > Is there a place that shows total number of eligible voters and the actual > number of votes received, trended over time. Is the membership well > represented by high turn out, or is the turn out "the same old people, > voting for the same people"" > http://bit.ly/1hqzGVc > > The President of the United States is limited to 8 years. > Many States and City's have term limits on their elected representatives. > Seems pretty democratic to me. > The current United States political system also only allows two candidates to have any kind of fighting chance in almost all major elections - let's not rely too heavily on that example of "democracy." If the U.S. Gov't jumped off a bridge... Cheers, ~Chris > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cgrundemann at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 06:12:36 2014 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:12:36 +0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes from > resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare that an > incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an AC > member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues on > the AC, > That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a great job selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections... both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is re-electing > members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting the benefit > of > How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are less effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your first two terms? If not you, than who? > new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult > work, that new AC members tend to provide. > > Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, > I see: > > Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes > 2013 4 1 1 2012 4 1 1 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected 2010 > 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected 2009 3 2 1 2008 2 3 > 2007 3 2 > As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was > not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on the > ballot. > I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic. > > I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new > people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly > sacrificing experience and continuity. > > Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, so > I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto the > AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea I just > had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from PPML > participants that is published for the ARIN membership to review when > casting their votes? > As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected is NOT a problem. Cheers, ~Chris > > -Scott > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov Wed Mar 26 09:15:01 2014 From: Timothy.S.Morizot at irs.gov (Morizot Timothy S) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:15:01 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <968C470DAC25FB419E0159952F28F0C06A7528FA@MEM0200CP3XF04.ds.irsnet.gov> +1. Term limits seems to be a solution in search of a problem. From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Lee Howard Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 4:39 PM To: Bruce Cornett; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal Could somebody state more clearly what problem this proposal is trying to solve? I've heard that "organizations tend toward entrenchment" but not that ARIN has. Is the community stagnant? Is the AC unresponsive to evolving thought in the region? Is the Board inaccessible? What problem would be solved by having new people in those positions? > Term limits are a must if for nothing else but to prevent > what they call "founders syndrome." There's only one founding Board member still at ARIN, and he's on the Board ex-officio: John Curran. Only Bill Woodcock has more than ten years' tenure. I was a Board member for three years, lost re-election, took a year off, then ran again and won. Two terms later, I lost re-election. I'm not the only one: https://www.arin.net/about_us/bot_former.html 15 former Board members (counting myself only twice) for an organization that's 16(?) years old doesn't seem stagnant to me. See also the very long list of former AC members: https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac_former.html Is it really 46 former AC members? Looks to me like there's turnover already. If we need more churn, I would want to understand what's broken. Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 13:23:39 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:23:39 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > >> IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes from >> resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare that an >> incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an AC >> member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues on >> the AC, >> > > That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a > problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a > great job selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to > be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections... > That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different. I would say it indicates that the community *likes* the people it elects to the AC. I think that personal popularity has a disproportionate impact in re-electing AC members. It would be better if more information were readily available to the membership, so they could base their choices on things like accomplishments and voting records. > both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is re-electing >> members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting the benefit >> of >> > > How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are less > effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your > first two terms? If not you, than who? > Yes, I actually am saying that. I still believe I am highly effective, but I found myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, and putting in a lot less effort than I had in my first few years. I believe I have mostly corrected that now, but I definitely see the tendency to start coasting after a certain amount of time, both in myself and other AC members. > > >> new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult >> work, that new AC members tend to provide. >> >> Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was >> elected, I see: >> >> Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes >> 2013 4 1 1 2012 4 1 1 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected >> 2010 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected 2009 3 2 1 2008 2 >> 3 2007 3 2 >> As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was >> not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on the >> ballot. >> > > I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five > open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic. > Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range of 7-20%), almost all from attrition. If we had even 3% of full-term incumbents getting replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be quite happy. But it's actually less than 1%. IMO that's too low. >> I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new >> people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly >> sacrificing experience and continuity. >> >> Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, >> so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto >> the AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea I >> just had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from >> PPML participants that is published for the ARIN membership to review when >> casting their votes? >> > > As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the > _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected > is NOT a problem. > Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits would help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that is a serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures. Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a 15-member AC in the first place. In all of the other RIRs, they simply have a policy working group chair and co-chair, and then interested members of the community do all of the heavy lifting on policy, and on getting a consensus in the community. An alternative to think about (and maybe discuss in Chicago) might be to have proposal authors and wg chairs select one or more shepherds for each policy proposal, and assign the shepherd the role of working with the author and community to try to actively forge a consensus? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or not, but it's food for thought, anyway... -Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Marla.Azinger at FTR.com Wed Mar 26 13:35:07 2014 From: Marla.Azinger at FTR.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:35:07 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Hi John Given the response I think an official proposal needs to be written. I'm happy to see the acceptance of a written proposal will be received for due process and not turned over to the recycling bin for "not being a policy topic". I will try to get that turned in this week. Regards Marla -----Original Message----- From: John Springer [mailto:springer at inlandnet.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 12:51 PM To: Azinger, Marla Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal Hi Marla, The current PDP requires only two things for a policy proposal to be accepted as a Draft Policy, to have a clear problem statement and be in scope for the AC. I am sure all AC members will be delighted to work with you to arrive at the former. I am less sure how successful we will be getting around a clear statement from the BoT that such matters are not in scope. We can certainly give it a shot if that is the way you would prefer to go. Alternately, all members of the Board of Trustees read these lists, perhaps they may take the matter up directly from here? Or they may prefer to receive the question via the suggestion process? https://www.arin.net/app/suggestion/ The AC has had some recent experience with adopting changes to standing rules. Perhaps that might be an option. There does appear to be a healthy amount of initial support for your idea. How would you like to proceed? John Springer On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Azinger, Marla wrote: > > Having been on the AC for a 6 years I support a term limit for the AC. > > ? > > When on my 4th year I pursued creating a term limit.? At the time I > was told this was an action the BOT would have to take.? No action was > taken.? Later I inquired on this being submitted as policy since the > BOT did not take action.? I was told it would be thrown out since it?s not a matter of policy. ?Now with time and reviewing other public posts, I have more hope this will be taken seriously and something done.? I include this small history on my experience to show that the idea of term measures has been around for a? while but for some reason never gained traction. > > ? > > I believe a balance between familiarity, hitting a productive stride, > burn out and mind melting needs to be balanced out with fresh able > minds.? I also believe a solid > 3 year break is needed for people to re-integrate as a non-AC person > and regroup.? Leaving anyone on a committee for more than 6 years opens the door to stagnation, burn out, and conformity of thinking.? Remember, just because someone is not on the AC any longer does not mean AC folks can?t get advice from them if desired. > > ? > > I propose the following be used for AC: > > -Keep the 3 year terms in place ?and add > > -a 6 year contiguous term limit > > -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or > 6years > > -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC again. > > ? > > ? > > ? > > I believe the BOT should also have some term measures and limits.? > However, I am asking someone who has served on the BOT in the past to create a thought out term plan and propose it. > > ? > > To keep this topic on track, I have purposely excluded the discussion > of committee member candidate requirements.? This should be a separate topic that also needs discussion in order to better ensure community wide representation. > > ? > > ? > > Regards > > Marla Azinger > > > From jcurran at arin.net Wed Mar 26 14:06:24 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:06:24 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <358A138A-912D-4A9C-BAEB-9316083D80BE@arin.net> On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: > Hi John > > Given the response I think an official proposal needs to be written. I'm happy to see the acceptance of a written proposal will be received for due process and not turned over to the recycling bin for "not being a policy topic". If the ARIN AC wishes to discuss terms limits for the ARIN AC, then that is something that may do at any time and in fact are quite capable of voluntarily enforcement thereof... No ARIN policy proposal is necessary, and in fact, it would be out of scope for the policy development process. If mandatory terms limits are desired for the ARIN Board of Trustees or ARIN AC, it would be best to write up the specific suggestion and submit the ARIN consultation and suggestion process, as noted by John Springer. I will bring the proposal and results of the discussion of the proposal on the arin-consult mailing list to the ARIN Board of Trustees for their further consideration. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cgrundemann at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 14:19:29 2014 From: cgrundemann at gmail.com (Chris Grundemann) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 02:19:29 +0800 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> >>> IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes >>> from resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare >>> that an incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an >>> AC member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues >>> on the AC, >>> >> >> That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a >> problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a >> great job selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to >> be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections... >> > > That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different. > I would say it indicates that the community *likes* the people it elects > to the AC. I think that personal popularity has a disproportionate impact > in re-electing AC members. It would be better if more information were > readily available to the membership, so they could base their choices on > things like accomplishments and voting records. > That information is readily available: PPML is publicly archived: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/ All AC meeting minutes including vote counts are publicly archived: https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ All AC presentations at PPMs and PPCs are publicly archived: https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/past_meetings.html I can not say why people vote the way they do (I've never cast an ARIN ballot) but to say the information on AC members is not available is simply NOT true. > > >> both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is >>> re-electing members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting >>> the benefit of >>> >> >> How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are >> less effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your >> first two terms? If not you, than who? >> > > Yes, I actually am saying that. I still believe I am highly effective, > but I found myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, and putting in a > lot less effort than I had in my first few years. I believe I have mostly > corrected that now, but I definitely see the tendency to start coasting > after a certain amount of time, both in myself and other AC members. > If you can no longer do the work, resign (maybe like those past AC members who left through "attrition" stepped down due to this knowledge of themselves). The fact that you feel bad for not doing your best for a time is testament to your character, but not a valid rationale for term limits. I did not observe what you say you did in my three years on the AC. In fact, I found many of the longest standing AC members to be the most active and helpful. > > >> >> >>> new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on >>> difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide. >>> >>> Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was >>> elected, I see: >>> >>> Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes >>> 2013 4 1 1 2012 4 1 1 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected >>> 2010 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected 2009 3 2 1 2008 >>> 2 3 2007 3 2 >>> As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was >>> not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on the >>> ballot. >>> >> >> I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five >> open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic. >> > > Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range > of 7-20%), almost all from attrition. If we had even 3% of full-term > incumbents getting replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be > quite happy. But it's actually less than 1%. IMO that's too low. > As I said above, burnt out AC members leaving intentionally is actually a sign of a working system of trust, not a need for term limits. Also, let's not start making the "maths" fit your views, stick to the facts (as you present them above): - 5 seats are up for grabs in each election (appointments are additional sometimes when someone steps down) - in EVERY election you list, at least one new member was elected - 1 out of 5 is 20% of that election cycle (you can't take it as a percentage of the 10 that aren't up for election, of course they maintain their seat that year, counting otherwise is disingenuous at best) - 2 out of 5 is 40% and 3 out of 5 is 60% - That makes 20-60% new AC members in _every_ election you list > > >>> I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new >>> people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly >>> sacrificing experience and continuity. >>> >>> Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, >>> so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto >>> the AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea I >>> just had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from >>> PPML participants that is published for the ARIN membership to review when >>> casting their votes? >>> >> >> As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the >> _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected >> is NOT a problem. >> > > Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits > would help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be > possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: > > IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and > approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little > bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that is a > serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on > the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather > than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I > definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time > together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures. > Thank you for listing what you see as actual problems. That is a huge step forward. I have to say that I don't agree with you though. In my time on the AC, the longest standing members where the least likely to be "perks" driven and had the most thoughtful answers to new situations. > > Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a > 15-member AC in the first place. In all of the other RIRs, they simply > have a > You want more new blood by having less people involved... Does not compute. policy working group chair and co-chair, and then interested members of the > community do all of the heavy lifting on policy, and on getting a consensus > in the community. An alternative to think about (and maybe discuss in > Chicago) might be to have proposal authors and wg chairs select one or > more shepherds for each policy proposal, and assign the shepherd the role > of working with the author and community to try to actively forge a > consensus? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or not, but it's food > for thought, anyway... > Expecting these "policy shepherds" to appear whenever needed may be a tad utopian. However, I applaud the offer of alternate ideas. If the community can first agree on a problem statement, and then work out the best solution to that problem by evaluating all the options, I will happily support the outcome. Right now we have a solution with no clearly defined or agreed upon problem seeking approval with little rationale. Let's be a tad more diligent and honest is all I'm asking. Cheers, ~Chris > -Scott > > -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From billdarte at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 14:53:38 2014 From: billdarte at gmail.com (Bill Darte) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:53:38 -0500 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Scott said: "IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that is a serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures." Scott, I am interested to know more about what you consider examples of new ideas and approaches.... given the highly scripted role of the AC in support of the PDP, and given the schedules for AC and ARIN meetings, our standing rules and Robert's Rules all guiding our process and activities. Also, we as a body are most often criticized IMO for being too liberal in our interpretations and support for policy proposals that are re-hashes of ideas disposed of in the past or for continuing to engage with proposals that are 'moving deck chairs' or v4 exhaustion which the community has consistently asked us to stop doing. I'm sure many would say our workload is artificially high now. I do not agree that the AC is tending toward becoming a social and travel club...I think everyone takes their duties and role in travel seriously, but I find no fault with people endeavoring to know one another better, to understand where they are coming from and to build relationships. More quality change comes through trust than any other organizational or technical skill IMO. And, listening is as important a skill as is speaking when it comes to understanding policy issues and other's perspectives. In our volunteer role, we all spend a great deal of time with policy proposals and policy discussion at meetings and in between. If we have our different approaches and a diversity of people on the AC, you can thank the founders of ARIN and the electorate of the membership community. It seems to me your are arguing for less diversity in approaches than more in some ways. On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> >>> IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes >>> from resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare >>> that an incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an >>> AC member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues >>> on the AC, >>> >> >> That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a >> problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a >> great job selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to >> be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections... >> > > That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different. > I would say it indicates that the community *likes* the people it elects > to the AC. I think that personal popularity has a disproportionate impact > in re-electing AC members. It would be better if more information were > readily available to the membership, so they could base their choices on > things like accomplishments and voting records. > > >> both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is >>> re-electing members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting >>> the benefit of >>> >> >> How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are >> less effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your >> first two terms? If not you, than who? >> > > Yes, I actually am saying that. I still believe I am highly effective, > but I found myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, and putting in a > lot less effort than I had in my first few years. I believe I have mostly > corrected that now, but I definitely see the tendency to start coasting > after a certain amount of time, both in myself and other AC members. > > >> >> >>> new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on >>> difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide. >>> >>> Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was >>> elected, I see: >>> >>> Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes >>> 2013 4 1 1 2012 4 1 1 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected >>> 2010 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected 2009 3 2 1 2008 >>> 2 3 2007 3 2 >>> As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was >>> not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on the >>> ballot. >>> >> >> I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five >> open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic. >> > > Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range > of 7-20%), almost all from attrition. If we had even 3% of full-term > incumbents getting replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be > quite happy. But it's actually less than 1%. IMO that's too low. > > >>> I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new >>> people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly >>> sacrificing experience and continuity. >>> >>> Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, >>> so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto >>> the AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea I >>> just had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from >>> PPML participants that is published for the ARIN membership to review when >>> casting their votes? >>> >> >> As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the >> _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected >> is NOT a problem. >> > > Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits > would help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be > possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: > > IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and > approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little > bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that is a > serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on > the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather > than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I > definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time > together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures. > > Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a > 15-member AC in the first place. In all of the other RIRs, they simply > have a policy working group chair and co-chair, and then interested members > of the community do all of the heavy lifting on policy, and on getting a > consensus in the community. An alternative to think about (and maybe > discuss in Chicago) might be to have proposal authors and wg chairs > select one or more shepherds for each policy proposal, and assign the > shepherd the role of working with the author and community to try to > actively forge a consensus? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or > not, but it's food for thought, anyway... > > -Scott > > > _______________________________________________ > ARIN-Discuss > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From springer at inlandnet.com Wed Mar 26 14:58:58 2014 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:58:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It's going to be a little hard to know to whom I am replying due to non-indentation of replies, but I'll do my best. On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes from resignations and people deciding not to run again. ?It's very rare that an > incumbent fails to get re-elected. ?Given what I've observed as an AC member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues on the > AC, > > > That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a great job > selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections... I agree that this does not yet seem to rise to the level of a problem. There seems to be rather a lot of new and new/old faces (Kevin, myself, Milton, Tina, Andrew) lately. > That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different. ?I would say it indicates that the community *likes* the people it elects to the AC. ?I think > that personal popularity has a disproportionate impact in re-electing AC members. ?It would be better if more information were readily available to the membership, so > they could base their choices on things like accomplishments and voting records. More information is always good. Four of the above five having not been re-elected, I don't know what conclusions can be drawn about our popularity. How well people are *liked* and questions of how popular people are recall to me a particularly odious time in my life prior to military service. If, in fact, that is what is going on here, perhaps we can address that particular matter in a more targeted way than term limits. I can recall some pretty candid discussions that have taken place. > both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is re-electing members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting the > benefit of > > > How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are less effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your first two > terms? If not you, than who? > > > Yes, I actually am saying that. ?I still believe I am highly effective, but I found myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, and putting in a lot less effort than > I had in my first few years. ?I believe I have mostly corrected that now, but I definitely see the tendency to start coasting after a certain amount of time, both in > myself and other AC members. Well, don't do that then. Term limits are not the answer for this situation. Surely you aren't suggesting that if terms limits were in place, this mid-term ennui would not have occured. ? > new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide. > Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, I see: > > Year > Re-elected > Newly Elected > Newly appointed > NOT Re-elected > Notes > 2013 > 4 > 1 > 1 > 2012 > 4 > 1 > 1 > 2011 > 4 > 1 > 1 > 3-year incumbent not re-elected > 2010 > 3 > 2 > 1 > 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected > 2009 > 3 > 2 > 1 > 2008 > 2 > 3 > 2007 > 3 > 2 > > As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on the ballot. I'm not immediately seeing any conclusion to be inferred from this observation. > I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic. > > > Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range of 7-20%), almost all from attrition. ?If we had even 3% of full-term incumbents getting > replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be quite happy. ?But it's actually less than 1%. ?IMO that's too low. But higher lately, right? > I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly > sacrificing experience and continuity. > > Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto the AC. > ?Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? ?One idea I just had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from PPML participants > that is published for the ARIN membership to review when casting their votes? > > > As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected is NOT a problem. > > > Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. ?I think term limits would help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be possible to come up > with better solutions to each one of them: Take these one at a time. > IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate?new ideas and > approaches. More new faces would help with that. ? Speaking as one of those new faces, I can say with some authority that I approach the idea of floating a lot of new ideas and approaches with some caution. I am getting a little more willing to take some risks with experience, but a case could be made that I at least am more conservative than many old timers. > We also tend a little bit toward becoming a > social and travel club. ?I don't think that is a serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on the AC because we like our colleagues and > because we like to travel, rather than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. ?I definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to > spend our time together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures. This is a bit of a tautological approach. The f2f experience is superior to the list in some ways. We need to travel to get f2f. We tend to like the f2f experience. Therefore, our motivation is exclusively to be a travel and social club. I have heard the grumbling about policy weenie wannabies junketing about on endless boondogles, but that is not the way it seems to me. Again, if this is a specific problem, let's air it out. Term limits seems like a particularly ineffective approach to this one. > Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a 15-member AC in the first place. ? We did talk about this at some length. I am not against raising the subject again. > In all of the other RIRs, In addition to being a statement of fact, this is also an appeal to the bandwagon, and thus an insufficient reason for action. When I have seen such an observation floated in other fora, the response has sometimes been that the RIR system is ideal for each region to do things in their own way. > they simply have a policy working > group chair and co-chair, and then interested members of the community do all of the heavy lifting on policy, and on getting a consensus in the community. ?An > alternative to think about (and maybe discuss in Chicago) might be?to have proposal authors and wg chairs select one or more shepherds for each policy proposal, and > assign the shepherd the role of working with the author and community to try to actively forge a consensus? ? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or not, but it's > food for thought, anyway... OK, I'm game. But it looks like a lot of ground to cover from here to there. It might make a nice change from deck chairs though. Is restructuring the AC in scope for the AC? > -Scott John Springer From jcurran at arin.net Wed Mar 26 15:23:26 2014 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:23:26 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mar 27, 2014, at 2:58 AM, John Springer wrote: > OK, I'm game. But it looks like a lot of ground to cover from here to there. It might make a nice change from deck chairs though. Is restructuring the AC in scope for the AC? The scope of the ARIN AC is Internet numbering resource policies and related matters such as internal guidelines that it needs to perform its work. Any members of the community (AC or not) can suggest a change to how the AC is structured; such proposals should be submitted to the ARIN consultation and suggestion process (as noted earlier) so the larger community can discuss the proposal and the results taken to the ARIN Board of Trustees for their consideration. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN From cja at daydream.com Wed Mar 26 20:29:59 2014 From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:29:59 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Could you explain why you're talking about Bill Darte's seat as if he is not on the AC serving a term to which he was duly elected? There is no prohibition about him running for a subsequent term at this point either. Bill has been an outstanding member of the AC and has done significant work for this community. If you want to talk about changing a seat on the AC to be appointed that's fine but leave a particular person out of it. Thanks ----Cathy On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand > wrote: > | Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits > would > | help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be > | possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: > > I wonder if it would be worth while to list the suggested deficiencies, > and the suggested solutions, then let the community collectively judge > which deficiencies are problematic, and with solution(s) best solve the > most problematic issues with the smallest collateral damage. > > Martin Hannigan suggested a 365 degree assessment. This could give the > community a peak into how the AC evaluates each other's work contribution, > and effectiveness, which may give the community more to go on when voting > than a popularity contest. > > Jimmy Hess suggested: > a yearly oscillation in the number of AC members that will be nominated. > Such as X + 1 members in even numbered years, and X - 1 members in odd > numbered years. > > We might also consider making Bill Darte's seat an appointed position and > require the appointment to be filled with someone who has never been on the > AC. It could continue to have a three year term, or could be shortened. > > Rather than an appointment, we could fill Bill Darte's seat by a separate > election. In this case four seats could be elected out of the pool of > candidates, and the fifth seat would be filled by the candidate who has the > most votes that has never served on the AC. > > ___Jason > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand >> > wrote: >>> >>>> IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes >>>> from resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare >>>> that an incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an >>>> AC member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues >>>> on the AC, >>>> >>> >>> That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a >>> problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a >>> great job selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to >>> be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections... >>> >> >> That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different. >> I would say it indicates that the community *likes* the people it elects >> to the AC. I think that personal popularity has a disproportionate impact >> in re-electing AC members. It would be better if more information were >> readily available to the membership, so they could base their choices on >> things like accomplishments and voting records. >> >> >>> both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is >>>> re-electing members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting >>>> the benefit of >>>> >>> >>> How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are >>> less effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your >>> first two terms? If not you, than who? >>> >> >> Yes, I actually am saying that. I still believe I am highly effective, >> but I found myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, and putting in a >> lot less effort than I had in my first few years. I believe I have mostly >> corrected that now, but I definitely see the tendency to start coasting >> after a certain amount of time, both in myself and other AC members. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on >>>> difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide. >>>> >>>> Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was >>>> elected, I see: >>>> >>>> Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes >>>> 2013 4 1 1 2012 4 1 1 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected >>>> 2010 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected 2009 3 2 1 2008 >>>> 2 3 2007 3 2 >>>> As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who >>>> was not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on >>>> the ballot. >>>> >>> >>> I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five >>> open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic. >>> >> >> Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range >> of 7-20%), almost all from attrition. If we had even 3% of full-term >> incumbents getting replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be >> quite happy. But it's actually less than 1%. IMO that's too low. >> >> >>>> I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new >>>> people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly >>>> sacrificing experience and continuity. >>>> >>>> Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, >>>> so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto >>>> the AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea I >>>> just had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from >>>> PPML participants that is published for the ARIN membership to review when >>>> casting their votes? >>>> >>> >>> As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the >>> _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected >>> is NOT a problem. >>> >> >> Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits >> would help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be >> possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: >> >> IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and >> approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little >> bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that is a >> serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on >> the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather >> than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I >> definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time >> together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures. >> >> Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a >> 15-member AC in the first place. In all of the other RIRs, they simply >> have a policy working group chair and co-chair, and then interested members >> of the community do all of the heavy lifting on policy, and on getting a >> consensus in the community. An alternative to think about (and maybe >> discuss in Chicago) might be to have proposal authors and wg chairs >> select one or more shepherds for each policy proposal, and assign the >> shepherd the role of working with the author and community to try to >> actively forge a consensus? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or >> not, but it's food for thought, anyway... >> >> -Scott >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From springer at inlandnet.com Wed Mar 26 20:44:52 2014 From: springer at inlandnet.com (John Springer) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:44:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Jason, Pardon my ignorance please, but what is "a 365 degree assessment."? A quick google turns up 365 degree total marketing and 360 degree assessments and 360 degree feedback. Is this like the Talking Heads 365 degrees? a typo? Also, Bill D. has been talked out of not running before. It might be premature to start disposing of his place just yet. just sayin' John Springer On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Jason Schiller wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand??wrote:|?Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. ?I > think term limits would > | help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be > | possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: > > I wonder if it would be worth while to list the suggested?deficiencies, and the suggested solutions, then let the community?collectively > judge which deficiencies are?problematic, and with solution(s) best solve the most problematic issues with the smallest collateral > damage. > > Martin Hannigan suggested a 365 degree assessment. ?This could give the community a peak into how the AC evaluates each other's work > contribution, and effectiveness, which may give the community more to go on when voting than a popularity contest. > > Jimmy Hess suggested: > a yearly oscillation in the number of AC members that will be nominated. > Such as X + 1 ?members in even numbered years, and ?X - 1 members in odd numbered years. > > We might also consider making Bill Darte's seat an appointed position and require the appointment to be filled with someone who has > never been on the AC. ?It could continue to have a three year term, or could be shortened.? > > Rather than an appointment, we could fill Bill Darte's seat by a separate election. ?In this case four seats could be elected out of the > pool of candidates, and the fifth seat would be filled by the candidate who has the most votes that has never served on the AC. ?? > > ___Jason > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes from resignations and people deciding not > to run again. ?It's very rare that an incumbent fails to get re-elected. ?Given what I've observed as an AC > member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues on the AC, > > > That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that > the community does a great job selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to be solid AC members, and > therefor continue to win elections... > > > That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different. ?I would say it indicates that the community *likes* the > people it elects to the AC. ?I think that personal popularity has a disproportionate impact in re-electing AC members. ?It would > be better if more information were readily available to the membership, so they could base their choices on things like > accomplishments and voting records. > > > both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is re-electing members who are less effective, and > we're therefore not getting the benefit of > > > How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are less effective? Are you saying that YOU are less > effective now then in your first two terms? If not you, than who? > > > Yes, I actually am saying that. ?I still believe I am highly effective, but I found myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, > and putting in a lot less effort than I had in my first few years. ?I believe I have mostly corrected that now, but I definitely > see the tendency to start coasting after a certain amount of time, both in myself and other AC members. > ? > ? > new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult work, that new AC members tend to > provide. > Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, I see: > > Year > Re-elected > Newly Elected > Newly appointed > NOT Re-elected > Notes > 2013 > 4 > 1 > 1 > 2012 > 4 > 1 > 1 > 2011 > 4 > 1 > 1 > 3-year incumbent not re-elected > 2010 > 3 > 2 > 1 > 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected > 2009 > 3 > 2 > 1 > 2008 > 2 > 3 > 2007 > 3 > 2 > > As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was not re-elected, and that was in a year when > there were 5 incumbents on the ballot. > > > I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually > pretty fantastic. > > > Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range of 7-20%), almost all from attrition. ?If we had even 3% > of full-term incumbents getting replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be quite happy. ?But it's actually less than > 1%. ?IMO that's too low. > > > I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, > onto the AC, without unduly sacrificing experience and continuity. > > Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can > get more fresh faces onto the AC. ?Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? ?One idea I just had would be to > allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from PPML participants that is published for the ARIN membership to > review when casting their votes? > > > As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members > being re-elected is NOT a problem. > > > Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. ?I think term limits would help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a > panacea, and it may be possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: > > IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate?new ideas and approaches. ?More new faces would help with that. ?We also > tend a little bit toward becoming a social and travel club. ?I don't think that is a serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry > about how many of us stay on the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather than because we like to > talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. ?I definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time > together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures. > > Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a 15-member AC in the first place. ?In all of the other RIRs, > they simply have a policy working group chair and co-chair, and then interested members of the community do all of the heavy > lifting on policy, and on getting a consensus in the community. ?An alternative to think about (and maybe discuss in Chicago) > might be?to have proposal authors and wg chairs select one or more shepherds for each policy proposal, and assign the shepherd the > role of working with the author and community to try to actively forge a consensus? ? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or > not, but it's food for thought, anyway... > > -Scott > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > > > > > -- > _______________________________________________________ > Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 > > > From scottleibrand at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 20:46:50 2014 From: scottleibrand at gmail.com (Scott Leibrand) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:46:50 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <312B1DFE-1AE4-4B3A-870B-83AD1EBB5617@gmail.com> Bill already said earlier on the thread he wasn't planning to run again. Scott > On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:29 PM, CJ Aronson wrote: > > Could you explain why you're talking about Bill Darte's seat as if he is not on the AC serving a term to which he was duly elected? There is no prohibition about him running for a subsequent term at this point either. Bill has been an outstanding member of the AC and has done significant work for this community. If you want to talk about changing a seat on the AC to be appointed that's fine but leave a particular person out of it. > > Thanks > ----Cathy > > >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> | Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits would >> | help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be >> | possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: >> >> I wonder if it would be worth while to list the suggested deficiencies, and the suggested solutions, then let the community collectively judge which deficiencies are problematic, and with solution(s) best solve the most problematic issues with the smallest collateral damage. >> >> Martin Hannigan suggested a 365 degree assessment. This could give the community a peak into how the AC evaluates each other's work contribution, and effectiveness, which may give the community more to go on when voting than a popularity contest. >> >> Jimmy Hess suggested: >> a yearly oscillation in the number of AC members that will be nominated. >> Such as X + 1 members in even numbered years, and X - 1 members in odd numbered years. >> >> We might also consider making Bill Darte's seat an appointed position and require the appointment to be filled with someone who has never been on the AC. It could continue to have a three year term, or could be shortened. >> >> Rather than an appointment, we could fill Bill Darte's seat by a separate election. In this case four seats could be elected out of the pool of candidates, and the fifth seat would be filled by the candidate who has the most votes that has never served on the AC. >> >> ___Jason >> >> >> >>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >>>>> IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes from resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare that an incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an AC member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues on the AC, >>>> >>>> That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a great job selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections... >>> >>> That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different. I would say it indicates that the community *likes* the people it elects to the AC. I think that personal popularity has a disproportionate impact in re-electing AC members. It would be better if more information were readily available to the membership, so they could base their choices on things like accomplishments and voting records. >>> >>>> >>>>> both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is re-electing members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting the benefit of >>>> >>>> How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are less effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your first two terms? If not you, than who? >>> >>> Yes, I actually am saying that. I still believe I am highly effective, but I found myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, and putting in a lot less effort than I had in my first few years. I believe I have mostly corrected that now, but I definitely see the tendency to start coasting after a certain amount of time, both in myself and other AC members. >>> >>>> >>>>> new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide. >>>>> >>>>> Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, I see: >>>>> >>>>> Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes >>>>> 2013 4 1 1 >>>>> 2012 4 1 1 >>>>> 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected >>>>> 2010 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected >>>>> 2009 3 2 1 >>>>> 2008 2 3 >>>>> 2007 3 2 >>>>> >>>>> As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on the ballot. >>>> >>>> I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic. >>> >>> Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range of 7-20%), almost all from attrition. If we had even 3% of full-term incumbents getting replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be quite happy. But it's actually less than 1%. IMO that's too low. >>> >>>>> >>>>> I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly sacrificing experience and continuity. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto the AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea I just had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from PPML participants that is published for the ARIN membership to review when casting their votes? >>>> >>>> As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected is NOT a problem. >>> >>> Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits would help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: >>> >>> IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that is a serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures. >>> >>> Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a 15-member AC in the first place. In all of the other RIRs, they simply have a policy working group chair and co-chair, and then interested members of the community do all of the heavy lifting on policy, and on getting a consensus in the community. An alternative to think about (and maybe discuss in Chicago) might be to have proposal authors and wg chairs select one or more shepherds for each policy proposal, and assign the shepherd the role of working with the author and community to try to actively forge a consensus? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or not, but it's food for thought, anyway... >>> >>> -Scott >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________________ >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cja at daydream.com Wed Mar 26 20:48:57 2014 From: cja at daydream.com (CJ Aronson) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:48:57 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <312B1DFE-1AE4-4B3A-870B-83AD1EBB5617@gmail.com> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <312B1DFE-1AE4-4B3A-870B-83AD1EBB5617@gmail.com> Message-ID: It doesn't matter if he says he's not running again. If we generically want to make a seat appointed then fine but he has every right to change his mind and run again. Leave AC member's names out of it. Thanks ----Cathy On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Scott Leibrand wrote: > Bill already said earlier on the thread he wasn't planning to run again. > > Scott > > On Mar 26, 2014, at 5:29 PM, CJ Aronson wrote: > > Could you explain why you're talking about Bill Darte's seat as if he is > not on the AC serving a term to which he was duly elected? There is no > prohibition about him running for a subsequent term at this point either. > Bill has been an outstanding member of the AC and has done significant work > for this community. If you want to talk about changing a seat on the AC to > be appointed that's fine but leave a particular person out of it. > > Thanks > ----Cathy > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Jason Schiller wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand >> wrote: >> | Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits >> would >> | help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be >> | possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: >> >> I wonder if it would be worth while to list the suggested deficiencies, >> and the suggested solutions, then let the community collectively judge >> which deficiencies are problematic, and with solution(s) best solve the >> most problematic issues with the smallest collateral damage. >> >> Martin Hannigan suggested a 365 degree assessment. This could give the >> community a peak into how the AC evaluates each other's work contribution, >> and effectiveness, which may give the community more to go on when voting >> than a popularity contest. >> >> Jimmy Hess suggested: >> a yearly oscillation in the number of AC members that will be nominated. >> Such as X + 1 members in even numbered years, and X - 1 members in odd >> numbered years. >> >> We might also consider making Bill Darte's seat an appointed position and >> require the appointment to be filled with someone who has never been on the >> AC. It could continue to have a three year term, or could be shortened. >> >> Rather than an appointment, we could fill Bill Darte's seat by a separate >> election. In this case four seats could be elected out of the pool of >> candidates, and the fifth seat would be filled by the candidate who has the >> most votes that has never served on the AC. >> >> ___Jason >> >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann < >>> cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand < >>>> scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes >>>>> from resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare >>>>> that an incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an >>>>> AC member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues >>>>> on the AC, >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a >>>> problem. From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a >>>> great job selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to >>>> be solid AC members, and therefor continue to win elections... >>>> >>> >>> That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly >>> different. I would say it indicates that the community *likes* the people >>> it elects to the AC. I think that personal popularity has a >>> disproportionate impact in re-electing AC members. It would be better if >>> more information were readily available to the membership, so they could >>> base their choices on things like accomplishments and voting records. >>> >>> >>>> both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is >>>>> re-electing members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting >>>>> the benefit of >>>>> >>>> >>>> How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are >>>> less effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your >>>> first two terms? If not you, than who? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, I actually am saying that. I still believe I am highly effective, >>> but I found myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, and putting in a >>> lot less effort than I had in my first few years. I believe I have mostly >>> corrected that now, but I definitely see the tendency to start coasting >>> after a certain amount of time, both in myself and other AC members. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on >>>>> difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide. >>>>> >>>>> Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was >>>>> elected, I see: >>>>> >>>>> Year Re-elected Newly Elected Newly appointed NOT Re-elected Notes >>>>> 2013 4 1 1 2012 4 1 1 2011 4 1 1 3-year incumbent not re-elected >>>>> 2010 3 2 1 1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected 2009 3 2 1 >>>>> 2008 2 3 2007 3 2 >>>>> As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who >>>>> was not re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on >>>>> the ballot. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five >>>> open positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic. >>>> >>> >>> Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a >>> range of 7-20%), almost all from attrition. If we had even 3% of full-term >>> incumbents getting replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be >>> quite happy. But it's actually less than 1%. IMO that's too low. >>> >>> >>>>> I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new >>>>> people, with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly >>>>> sacrificing experience and continuity. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same >>>>> thing, so I'd love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces >>>>> onto the AC. Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea >>>>> I just had would be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from >>>>> PPML participants that is published for the ARIN membership to review when >>>>> casting their votes? >>>>> >>>> >>>> As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the >>>> _problem_ we are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected >>>> is NOT a problem. >>>> >>> >>> Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits >>> would help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be >>> possible to come up with better solutions to each one of them: >>> >>> IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and >>> approaches. More new faces would help with that. We also tend a little >>> bit toward becoming a social and travel club. I don't think that is a >>> serious problem, yet, but I definitely worry about how many of us stay on >>> the AC because we like our colleagues and because we like to travel, rather >>> than because we like to talk about, write, and improve ARIN policy. I >>> definitely see that most new AC members are more inclined to spend our time >>> together talking about policy than most AC members with longer tenures. >>> >>> Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a >>> 15-member AC in the first place. In all of the other RIRs, they simply >>> have a policy working group chair and co-chair, and then interested members >>> of the community do all of the heavy lifting on policy, and on getting a >>> consensus in the community. An alternative to think about (and maybe >>> discuss in Chicago) might be to have proposal authors and wg chairs >>> select one or more shepherds for each policy proposal, and assign the >>> shepherd the role of working with the author and community to try to >>> actively forge a consensus? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or >>> not, but it's food for thought, anyway... >>> >>> -Scott >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PPML >>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________________ >> Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PPML >> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to >> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hannigan at gmail.com Wed Mar 26 21:27:44 2014 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:27:44 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <20140325161504.GO47828@mx1.yitter.info> <5331B639.4010501@servlet.com> <1395783545.90117.YahooMailNeo@web160805.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <312B1DFE-1AE4-4B3A-870B-83AD1EBB5617@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Jason Schiller wrote: > The 360 degree review was Martin's suggestion. At the time it sounded > like it mean a review for every angle (360 degrees in a circle). > You mean by adding in the ASO AC to the term limits requirement as well as the BoT and the AC? If so, yes, 360. I'm not suggesting a review though. I haven't seen anyone suggest a review, rather implementation. [ clip ] > Bill Darte is an upstanding member of the AC, and I personally wish he > would continue to serve, but it seemed pretty clear that his intent is to > not continue. Such a vacancy (if it happens) might be a good opportunity > to repurpose the seat. > We all got it. Thanks. Best, -M< -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Marla.Azinger at FTR.com Thu Mar 27 18:56:09 2014 From: Marla.Azinger at FTR.com (Azinger, Marla) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 22:56:09 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <358A138A-912D-4A9C-BAEB-9316083D80BE@arin.net> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <358A138A-912D-4A9C-BAEB-9316083D80BE@arin.net> Message-ID: <3bb8903d5d8a46c09034a443b107b9e0@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> I have taken the direction to not submit a proposal since this particular subject has been requested to go through the suggestion process by John Curran. This will be reviewed and addressed by the BOT. The number assigned to this: Suggestion ID 2014.7 Should anyone choose to follow how the BOT handles this, I believe that ID should help. Regards Marla -----Original Message----- From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:06 AM To: arin-ppml at arin.net Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal On Mar 27, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Azinger, Marla wrote: > Hi John > > Given the response I think an official proposal needs to be written. I'm happy to see the acceptance of a written proposal will be received for due process and not turned over to the recycling bin for "not being a policy topic". If the ARIN AC wishes to discuss terms limits for the ARIN AC, then that is something that may do at any time and in fact are quite capable of voluntarily enforcement thereof... No ARIN policy proposal is necessary, and in fact, it would be out of scope for the policy development process. If mandatory terms limits are desired for the ARIN Board of Trustees or ARIN AC, it would be best to write up the specific suggestion and submit the ARIN consultation and suggestion process, as noted by John Springer. I will bring the proposal and results of the discussion of the proposal on the arin-consult mailing list to the ARIN Board of Trustees for their further consideration. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ ARIN-Discuss You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (ARIN-discuss at arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Mar 31 16:02:31 2014 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:02:31 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 3:19 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote: >> I propose the following be used for AC: >> >> -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add >> -a 6 year contiguous term limit >> -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years >> -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC >> again. > > Howdy, > > I support this, however... > > I think 6 years is too long. I would prefer to see one term contiguous > limits with a 1-year-out waiting period. I agree. > > I would NOT support this for the board. ARIN benefits from the board's > continuity. If you really want change, term limit the Board and forget the AC. Best, -M< From ptimmins at clearrate.com Mon Mar 31 16:08:06 2014 From: ptimmins at clearrate.com (Paul Timmins) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 20:08:06 +0000 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> , Message-ID: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415EF4403C@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> > ________________________________________ > From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of Martin Hannigan [hannigan at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:02 PM > To: William Herrin > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net> > Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal > > > I would NOT support this for the board. ARIN benefits from the board's > > continuity. > > If you really want change, term limit the Board and forget the AC. Do people really WANT change though? I think part of what helps the community at large is the predictability of policy w/r/t number allocation. A neutral entity controlling allocation uniformly per a generally stable policy provides a good regulatory environment for everyone, I'd think. -Paul From owen at delong.com Mon Mar 31 16:40:13 2014 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 13:40:13 -0700 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415EF4403C@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> , <8335CAF4177E7A4CBC4670E5F9FA9B415EF4403C@CRC-Exchange02.corp.clearrate.net> Message-ID: <9222E787-9024-4B55-B819-926C6027D252@delong.com> On Mar 31, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Paul Timmins wrote: >> ________________________________________ >> From: arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net [arin-discuss-bounces at arin.net] on behalf of Martin Hannigan [hannigan at gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 4:02 PM >> To: William Herrin >> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net; arin-discuss at arin.net> >> Subject: Re: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal >> >>> I would NOT support this for the board. ARIN benefits from the board's >>> continuity. >> >> If you really want change, term limit the Board and forget the AC. > > Do people really WANT change though? I think part of what helps the community at large is the predictability of policy w/r/t number allocation. > > A neutral entity controlling allocation uniformly per a generally stable policy provides a good regulatory environment for everyone, I'd think. Further, in reality, if the voting constituency really wanted change, I suspect incumbents would be less likely to get re-elected. I know I certainly don?t vote for incumbents who I am dissatisfied with. I doubt anyone else does, either. Owen From woolf at isc.org Mon Mar 31 16:46:50 2014 From: woolf at isc.org (Suzanne Woolf) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:46:50 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <27790A1E-34DF-4352-821B-CE3FD66DED0C@isc.org> Hmmm?. As an ex-AC member who decided not to run again after two terms, I have some very mixed feelings about a term limit proposal. In general, I oppose formal term limits. I prefer to trust AC members not to run again when they don't have the contribution to make, and the electorate to vote against incumbents who are ineffective or whose approach to the issues isn't what the community wants (although I think a diversity of approaches within the AC is important, and the AC is deliberately big enough to support that). The flexibility for the community to keep someone who *is* effective in place seems valuable. It strikes me that we may simply have a problem here in judging "effectiveness", which may go to transparency of the AC-- do people have the information they need to judge for themselves whether an incumbent is effective? do they use it? In the absence of real, accessible information, term limits can make decisions easier (by making term-limited incumbents irrelevant to the nomination and election processes) but not necessarily better. Some kind of formal review process, just for the information of the community, might help here-- not so much judgments on policy positions taken, although that's part of the mix, as proposals written, active participation in meetings, opinions of other AC members, etc. (IOW, cautious support for the 360 review idea.) We may also have a problem with depth of candidate pools, although I admit the last couple of times I took part in AC elections I didn't find that to be the case-- there seemed to be rather more qualified candidates than seats, leaving the electorate room to judge not only basic competence of candidates but some differences in approach and priorities. That's a pretty healthy situation that it took a long time to establish, and term limits would to some extent push back on it. The other concern I've seen expressed and that makes some sense to me is about the level of engagement of the electorate. If that's truly a major component of the discontent, it's only indirectly related to the AC-- either its selection or its performance. Furthermore, limiting the pool of AC candidates with term limits isn't going to make AC elections more effective in giving the community what it needs; only a more engaged electorate can do that, and there's no obvious (to me, anyway) link between fewer AC candidates and more involvement in elections. But if people feel strongly there's a need for term limits, I think one term is too aggressive; arguably it takes a year to even begin to be effective, another year to get comfortable with the machinery and relationships. If the community agrees six years really is too long, it makes more sense to shorten a single term to two years, and limit an incumbent to two terms. best, Suzanne On Mar 31, 2014, at 3:19 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote: >> I propose the following be used for AC: >> >> -Keep the 3 year terms in place and add >> -a 6 year contiguous term limit >> -a 3 year ineligibility year period after a term ends be it 3year or 6years >> -After 3 year ineligibility is over a person my run for a position on the AC >> again. > > Howdy, > > I support this, however... > > I think 6 years is too long. I would prefer to see one term contiguous > limits with a 1-year-out waiting period. This would assure that folks > rotate in and out of the advisory council, bringing fresh perspectives > with them. > > I would NOT support this for the board. ARIN benefits from the board's > continuity. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues. From hannigan at gmail.com Mon Mar 31 19:12:17 2014 From: hannigan at gmail.com (Martin Hannigan) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 19:12:17 -0400 Subject: [arin-discuss] [arin-ppml] Term Limit Proposal In-Reply-To: References: <25e50d53d9274f489b3c73bc43599d7f@BY2PR06MB488.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 5:21 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 3:19 PM, William Herrin wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Azinger, Marla wrote: >>> I think 6 years is too long. I would prefer to see one term contiguous >>> limits with a 1-year-out waiting period. > > Just in case anyone missed the nuance, I see value in asking the > engaged and hardworking volunteers on the AC to sit out once in a > while, just long enough to regain perspective from the outside. I > don't see why that need be for longer than until the next election. I > also note that we haven't had so many qualified volunteers for the > position that we can afford to have folks sit out for three years. > > >>> I would NOT support this for the board. ARIN benefits from the board's >>> continuity. >> >> If you really want change, term limit the Board and forget the AC. > > Change for change's sake is rarely for the better. Stability is > usually a good thing. I don't see rotating out AC members having a > negative impact on ARIN's overall stability. Frequent turnover on the > board, however... > As far as term limits go, there are a multitude of organizations that use them and suffer little from it including federal, state and municipal governments, non profts like the Appalachian Mountain Club, NANOG, and many others. There are a variety of problems term limits may help with including the self perpetuation concern, under representation (only a fraction of resource holders are actually "represented" and stagnation (Gov term limit task and PDP Simplification Committee). Term limits would likely resolve or soften some worthwhile problems. Why is ARIN different than all of these other venerable organizations? Best -M<