<div dir="ltr">On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com" target="_blank">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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, </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>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...<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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 </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>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?<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult work, that new AC members tend to provide.<div>
<br></div><div>Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, I see:</div><div><br></div><div><table style="border-collapse:collapse;width:522pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="695">
<colgroup><col style="width:48pt" width="64">
<col style="width:53pt" width="70">
<col style="width:68pt" width="90">
<col style="width:80pt" width="107">
<col style="width:76pt" width="101">
<col style="width:197pt" width="263">
</colgroup><tbody><tr style="height:14.4pt" height="19">
<td style="height:14.4pt;width:48pt" height="19" width="64">Year</td>
<td style="width:53pt" width="70">Re-elected</td>
<td style="width:68pt" width="90">Newly Elected</td>
<td style="width:80pt" width="107">Newly appointed</td>
<td style="width:76pt" width="101">NOT Re-elected</td>
<td style="width:197pt" width="263">Notes</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:14.4pt" height="19">
<td style="height:14.4pt" height="19">2013</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:14.4pt" height="19">
<td style="height:14.4pt" height="19">2012</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:14.4pt" height="19">
<td style="height:14.4pt" height="19">2011</td>
<td>4</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td>1</td>
<td>3-year incumbent not re-elected</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:14.4pt" height="19">
<td style="height:14.4pt" height="19">2010</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td></td>
<td>1</td>
<td>1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected</td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:14.4pt" height="19">
<td style="height:14.4pt" height="19">2009</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>1</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:14.4pt" height="19">
<td style="height:14.4pt" height="19">2008</td>
<td>2</td>
<td>3</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr style="height:14.4pt" height="19">
<td style="height:14.4pt" height="19">2007</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>2</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr></tbody></table><br></div><div>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.</div></div></blockquote><div>
<br></div><div>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. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.<br><br></div><div>Cheers,<br>
</div><div>~Chris<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div>-Scott</div></font></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>@ChrisGrundemann<br><a href="http://chrisgrundemann.com" target="_blank">http://chrisgrundemann.com</a>
</div></div>