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

Mike Burns mike at iptrading.com
Wed Oct 20 10:29:30 EDT 2021

It's not particularly important to consider this past election, but rather
to consider the vulnerabilities exposed by it.

We  have always needed the NomCom for its candidate-finding ability, not so
much for its candidate-filtering ability.
Isn't candidate-filtering what elections are for?

Why do we need a secret panel to make these decisions with subjectivity? Why
not limit the reasons for exclusion and make them public, so potential
candidates could be forewarned?

Those reasons should be clear, like the candidate can't be engaged in a
legal action against ARIN or is currently holding an elected seat in another
RIR, or is a convicted felon. 

The NomCom can still perform background checks to ensure these situations
don't pertain, and could even endorse or recommend candidates without
maintaining their current dark filtration ability.

The Board chooses the NomCom, the NomCom operates in the dark to filter
those who the Board disfavors, so the Board is selecting its own
replacements. It doesn't take a cabal of the full Board, it just takes a few
people to take advantage of the current setup to make this risk manifest.

It is a difficult situation to bring focus to, because it requires somebody
like me to make public my rejection.  Through the petition process and
through Cathy Aaronson's post we have learned for the first time that this
situation is not an imaginary problem. The NomCom is not some gentle group,
scouring the mailing lists for people to cajole into running. It's a dark
group of six persons who make up their own rules about how candidates are
filtered, and there is no requirement for them to provide any reasoning for
their decisions whatsoever.  

The small power provided to the NomCom has been abused and that abuse has
revealed the problem, now it's time to take steps to check that small power
so that ARIN's governance model can be more robust.

Consider RIPE's process, which limits exclusions with clear guidelines and
does not empower a star-chamber filtration mechanism.

-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:39 AM
To: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Announces the Final Slate of Candidates for
the 2021 ARIN Elections

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

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

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
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 mailing list