Revised Proposal & BoT

[Charles T. Smith, Jr.]

Overall, a good step in the right direction;  there are several things I'd
like to see solidified in the next version.

I'm slightly uncomfortable with two aspects of the Board of Trustees.  Given
that the intent is to split the name and address registrations, having the
COO of NSI as a member of the board of trustees may pose at least the
appearance of a conflict of interest;  yet I also see the value of having
Dr. Telage's input readily available;  as a compromise, I'd suggest making
this slot one of those to expire after one year.

As others have noted, an even number of Trustees is not a good thing;  
I suggest this be raised to 7.

Likewise, the Advisory Council should contain an odd number of members.

I would also like to see the methods of filling vacant seats on both the
BoT and the Advisory Council developed in detail and incorporated in a 
set of bylaws rather than after the organization is formed. 

To this end, as much of the proposal suggests that the advisory council
and BoT work together to resolve these issues, that it would not be out
of place for the BoT to name an interim council prior to writing by-laws
and articles of incorporation.

Michael Dillon wrote:
> Perhaps the real question is: do the potential members of ARIN want to
> see all these procedural and structural things decided up front, or do
> they prefer to do this after ARIN gets operational which is presumably
> some time in April?

I'd rather see them decided up front;  it's much easier to get things
right the first time than to try and back patch them later, and it's
never been my first choice to buy a pig-in-a-poke.

--
Charles T. Smith, Jr.
VecNet, Inc.