[arin-ppml] ARIN Announces the Final Slate of Candidates for the 2021 ARIN Elections

[Fernando Frediani]

Hi
I think there are a few important points to highlight.

First I personally don't see a problem in the existence of a NomCom. If 
that exists is because the membership wanted that at some point to have 
it in the bylaws so that just reflects their wish and understanding a 
NomCom is something necessary for ARIN's reality.
I understand that sometimes NomCom decisions may be controversial but in 
theory they should provide a proper filter of candidates due to several 
different reasons and not simply just 'be qualified' as there is some 
always some level of subjectivity in this type of process. This is 
supposed be in protection the organization and to make sure that the 
candidate has the necessary requirements to fulfill such an important 
role. Imagine if the NomCom identifies some candidates to either the 
Board or AC that may have some conflict of interest with ARIN or may 
understand a possible take over tentative.

What perhaps is making this more controversial and can get some 
improvements is the lack of feedback from the NomCom, at least to the 
candidates, so they can choose to make the public or not to membership 
in order to get their support to be candidates via the petition process.
I believe it is not something good to just to cast a vote in support to 
a petition without knowing the reasons of why a candidate was reject by 
NomCom, so if a rejected candidate finds it interesting it may share 
with membership which with that information decide if they would support 
the candidate or not via the petition process.

Best regards
Fernando

On 19/10/2021 21:29, William Herrin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 1:43 PM Leif Sawyer <lsawyer at gci.com> wrote:
>> I hear your frustrations for transparency, and I have formulated a suggestion that I've shared with the NomCom to improve the way that candidate responses are handled.
> Hi Leif,
>
> Why not simply ask the rejected candidates if they want an explanation
> in specificity with the understanding that if they answer yes, the
> explanation will be made publicly? That respects both privacy and
> transparency.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>