[arin-ppml] NomCom misbehavior

[Owen DeLong]

>> As this discussion unfolds I thought I would make a few clarifications given that the NomCom is formed by the Board. I understand that some members of the community may disagree with the outcome of the NomCom?s initial slate; however, an assertion of misbehavior suggests the NomCom acted out of scope of their charter and mandate or acted in bad faith.  

Indeed it does and that’s exactly what I call it when a committee responsible for producing a slate of alternatives to a voting body discards perfectly qualified candidates in order to appoint 2/3rds of their chosen.

It is bad faith for a nominating committee to reject candidates that don’t have a conflict of interest or other disqualifying property unless there is such an abundance of candidates that a meaningful election would be impossible.

In a race for 2 seats, one can hardly call 3, 5, or even 6 candidates such an abundance.

If there is a good reason for this and it isn’t an act of bad faith in an effort to narrow voter choice, then by all means, please explain how that is possible.

>> Based on the system in place and of which the community has been aware, the NomCom acted within its scope and performed its duties consistent with the parameters of its charter, Board guidance, and the Bylaws. The NomCom elected not to provide the optional explanatory statement to the candidates. The petitioners have exercised their right to ask the membership to add their name to the ballot. The petition process, while it is rare to be used, is there for this very purpose.

Where does the charter say that the nominating committee should narrow the field to not more than N+1 candidates?

I quote:

> The number of candidates placed by the NomCom on the initial Board of Trustees election slate shall exceed the number of open positions by at least one (1) candidate and be a maximum of six (6) candidates. The Board election slate shall include a minimum of one (1) non-incumbent candidate.


AT LEAST one and a MAXIMUM of SIX.

For the two open board seats, that means they could select up to 8 candidates and still act within their mandate.

As such, short of presenting some valid argument that Mr. Alexander and Mr. Da Silva are not qualified (which I doubt is possible), I can find no basis in the charter for them to exclude these two candidates and therefore I do, in fact, presume something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

>> There are also suggestions which are being raised which I would suggest are better raised in other forums. First the election process is underway and it would be inappropriate for the organization to enter into any discussion during the election process. Also, this is starting to sway out of the scope of PPML and other avenues are available to members such as the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (?ACSP") and the November ARIN Public Policy and Member?s Meeting.

It is perfectly fine to enter into discussions of procedural change during the election process so long as it is clear that the discussions are not pertinent to this election and if adopted would apply to future elections.

>> Having said that, the Board will note these suggestions, and as is our normal process, add these to our annual review later this year of the election process. We thank those that have provided such suggestions.

You’re welcome.

>> As for an assertion of bad faith, that is a very serious allegation and one that should not be made lightly. Mere disagreement with the decision of the NomCom does not in and of itself mean there is misbehavior; so I would ask that the community focus its feedback and comments on constructive input. If any community member has a specific account of bad faith to relay, please communicate that directly to me and/or ARIN?s General Counsel.

I don’t make the allegation lightly, but so far there has been no alternative even suggested. I can’t find any place in the NomCom charter:
	https://www.arin.net/about/welcome/board/committees/charters/#nomcom

That says that the nominating committee should disqualify valid candidates in order to narrow the slate to not more than N+1. Indeed, it specifically
calls out that they should select at least N+1 and not more than N+6.

As such, I see no legitimate basis in their charter for the disqualification of the two petition candidates.

Unfortunately, their charter does call for them to operate as a black box (something I think could use some reform) as stated in my original message.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20211010/cf5fa2d2/attachment.htm>