[arin-ppml] Board Election Petition underway

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Oct 15 08:49:08 EDT 2021

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 4:09 PM John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On 13 Oct 2021, at 1:25 PM, Jason Baugher <jasonbaugher at adamstel.com>
> wrote:
> John, I won’t attempt to speak for Owen, but rather would address the
> suggestion of Board involvement in the process.
> As an outsider to the process, I understand that the Board chooses from
> it’s own ranks 2 members of the NomCom, who then solicit volunteers and
> select to add them to the NomCom. Then the NomCom chooses candidates with
> no oversight or transparency to it’s decision-making process. Finally, we
> as members get to vote from the chosen candidates.
> The above summarization is roughly correct, noting the NomCom more often
> than not isn’t “choosing candidates” but actively try to recruiting people
> to serve (as there is often a dearth of volunteers…)

There’s a nuance. I was ‘rejected’ for the nom com in 2020 and 2021. While
one or both may have extended a call for volunteers due to not enough
initial participation, the extension allowed ARIN to self perpetuate and
cherry pick.

> Does the Board itself participate in the candidate review?
> Neither the Board nor the ARIN AC is involved in candidate review.

It two Board members are “choosing” the nomcom, the board is involved. I
don’t see how the organization can put the two (or the nomcom) at arms
length as we seem to be doing in the discussion effectively throwing them
under the bus. It’s a sort-of mafia mind set where as long as someone else
does the dirty work they’re “responsible”.  It’s a bit odd to be honest.

As an entity, I’m sure it doesn’t. However, the Board is choosing the
> trustees for the NomCom, and the NomCom is choosing the volunteers. The 2
> Trustees aren’t going to solicit a contrarian voice to be on the NomCom,
> and by extension the NomCom isn’t going to accept a candidate from the same
> bent.
> I am unsure what you mean by "The 2 Trustees aren’t going to solicit a
> contrarian voice to be on the NomCom” - note that the NomCom participants
> are selected

They don’t solicit specifically per se’. They pick winners. It’s difficult
to argue otherwise without the transparency IMHO.

[ clip ]

The only way someone can break the cycle is by a successful petition and
> getting enough votes, which is inherently unfair because those chosen by
> the NomCom have no such petition requirement.
> The petition process serves as an escape valve of sorts; regardless of the
> machinations of the nomination process, it provides an alternative path to
> be added to the election slate.

The petition process was designed for those who were, more than likely, not
suitable for a position on the ARIN Board.  I doubt that it is suitable
when there is an actual injustice.

The “ASCP” is another deflection when there are some strong, but simple,
changes that could be made if the board really wanted to.

- Make the nomcom selection process a lottery and publish the names
-Publish names and status of all applicants for the Board and AC
-Remove the NDA requirement. If it can’t be said publicly, don’t say it.

YMMV and warm regards to all,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20211015/c6202a61/attachment.htm>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list