[arin-ppml] [arin-discuss] Term Limit Proposal

CJ Aronson cja at daydream.com
Wed Mar 26 20:48:57 EDT 2014


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 <scottleibrand at gmail.com>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 <cja at daydream.com> 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 <jschiller at google.com>wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>>  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 <scottleibrand at gmail.com>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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20140327/4a970012/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list