[arin-ppml] ARIN Announces the Final Slate of Candidates for the 2021 ARIN Elections
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Oct 19 20:35:39 EDT 2021
The current process for explanations balances privacy and transparency well, if and only if the NomCom chooses to provide an explanation: the explanation is private unless the candidate chooses to petition or publicly discuss being passed over, in which case ARIN does or can post it publicly.
The missing piece is actually requiring the NomCom to provide an explanation to the candidate if asked: right now it’s optional and they rarely do. IMO that is the most important change the Board should make to the nominations process. (There are some others I’d like to see as well, but they’re less essential.)
> On Oct 19, 2021, at 5:30 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> 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
> Bill Herrin
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML