On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500 Benson Schliesser <bens...@queuefull.net> wrote:
> Earlier this year I received the following from ARIN member > services: "This year the NomCom charter was changed by the Board. > In the past the 3 Member volunteers were selected at random. This > year the 3 volunteers will be chosen by the 4 current members of the > NomCom (2 from the Board 2 from the AC)" yow. i should have remembered this, you'd think. > The above quote was sent to me in response to a query I made, > inquiring how the NomCom would be chosen in 2011. It is consistent > with what I was told in 2010, when I was chosen to be part of the > 2010 NomCom. At that time I was told that Member volunteers were > chosen randomly. During my NomCom tenure, however, it was suggested > to me privately that there was very little randomness involved in the > selection process; I was told that individuals were specifically > chosen for NomCom. I don't know what to make of this disparity, > honestly, which is why I referenced "the appearance of random > selection". suggested to you privately by arin staff? > The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts. It chooses the candidates > that the membership will see. The fact that the NomCom is so closely > coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance > that suggests a bias. I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is > recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates. But it > seems like an easy enough thing to avoid. you seem to mean that the appearance of bias would be easy to avoid, then. > As for my use of "existing establishment": I'm of the impression > that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most > ARIN members don't actively participate. I have my own opinions on > why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in > fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for > themselves if they wanted to. In any case, this is just my > impression. If you would rather share some statistics on member > participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more > useful. i think our participation level in elections is quite high and i'll ask for details and see them published here. > > ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its > > members. if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to > > hear your reasoning and your proposed alternative. > > One of ARIN's governance strengths is the availability of petition at > many steps, including for candidates rejected by the NomCom. > Likewise, as you noted, leaders are elected by the membership. For > these reasons I previously noted that "ARIN has a pretty good > governance structure" and I continue to think so. It could be > improved by increased member involvement, as well as broader > involvement from the community. (For instance, policy petitions > should include responses from the entire affected community, not just > PPML.) But my criticisms should be interpreted as constructive, and > are not an indictment of the whole approach. thanks for saying so. -- Paul Vixie
