[arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Christian Tacit]

Dear Community Members,

I have followed the discussion on participation on the mailing lists and COI with great interest and would like to make the following observations:

1.	As just one example, a party that seeks to get large quantities of IPv4 addresses can have a financial interest that is just as large or even larger than that of a broker, the difference being that the financial outlays the large party expends to acquire IPv4 addresses are infrequent and lumpy but very large, whereas the IPv4 address broker's income stream is comprised of smaller, commission-based income, and is steadier because it results from more frequent transactions. The point being that all parties that hold or can exert control over numbering resources have COIs when sitting on the AC or board.

2.	Despite the pervasive COI issue discussed above, ARIN has been set up in a manner that makes it highly unlikely for policies to pass due to mismanaged COIs. This is because the AC is a large body of 15 individuals elected by a diverse Community, and as such, the COI that each AC member brings is not the same as the COI others do, and some don't have any at all because they hold no resources and do not represent anyone who does. The diversity and size of the AC body not only constitutes an anti-trust shield for ARIN; it also acts as a COI shield. With the board increasing in size, this safeguard is also manifesting to a greater extent in that body as well. Speaking of the board, given the fiduciary duties of trustees, they have a positive obligation to recuse themselves from discussions in COI situations and they must be mindful of discharging that duty and ensuring that approved policies do not improperly increase the risk to the ARIN organization and its mission. The bottom line for me is that the institutional structure of ARIN specifically mitigates the potential impact of COIs to the point where COIs do not result in improper policy outcomes. 

3.	For my own part, in the nine years I have been on the AC, I have not observed COIs leading to improper decision-making. While Community members may disagree with various policies that have been adopted as it is their right to do, I cannot see evidence of any policies that have passed due to improperly managed COIs. The policies that have been adopted have all garnered significant Community support. Instead, I can tell you that, in the time I have served on the AC, I have witnessed my colleagues acting collectively for the benefit of the Community as they perceive it, regardless of the specific interests of individual members. More specifically, Amy Potter has been exceptionally careful not to allow her inherent COI to affect how she discharged her duty on the AC and has earned the respect of her AC colleagues. She certainly has mine.

4.	Finally, I want to address the comment that started this whole thread, which relates to participation in PPML not being broader. I think Community members should not underestimate that some individuals (although I am not one of them) will not necessarily feel comfortable participating in debates if they perceive the discussion to contain harsh language or acrimony, even if the posts are well within the boundaries of what the Mailing List AUP allows. Email posts are inherently a stark form of communication, since they are devoid of the context that people have when they can listen to each other's voices and see each other's body language. For that reason, it is particularly important for people to vet their drafts messages before posting them (e.g., by drafting but not posting right away) and think about how someone only reading the posts without human interactive context might interpret them. I think if Community members strive to do that to a greater degree while continuing to express their views vigorously, it may attract boarder participation, as people will feel safer in expressing their views.

Chris Tacit