[144974] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benson Schliesser)
Thu Sep 22 22:06:04 2011
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <g34o04vzmv.fsf@nsa.vix.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi, Paul.
On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
>> My understanding is that the NomCom consists of 7 people. Of those, 2
>> come from the board and 2 come from the AC. Together, those 4 members =
of
>> the existing establishment choose the remaining 3 NomCom members. In =
the
>> past, there was at least the appearance of random selection for some =
of
>> the NomCom members. But in any case, due to its composition, the =
NomCom
>> has the appearance of a body biased in favor of the existing
>> establishment.
>>=20
>> Please correct any misunderstanding that I might have. Otherwise, I
>> encourage an update to the structure of future NomComs.
>=20
> can you explain what it was about prior nomcoms that gave the =
appearance
> of random selection? to the best of my knowledge, including knowledge =
i
> gained as chair of the 2008 ARIN NomCom, we've been doing it the same =
way
> for quite a while now. so i do not understand your reference to "at =
least
> the appearance of random selection" in the past.
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)"
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".
> since ARIN members-in-good-standing elect the board and advisory =
council,
> and also make up three of the four seats of the nominations committee, =
i
> do not share your view on "bias" as expressed above. i think it shows
> that ARIN is clearly governed by its members -- which is as it should =
be.
>=20
> by your two references to "the existing establishment" do you intend =
to
> imply that ARIN's members don't currently have the establishment that =
they
> want, or that they could not change this establishment if they wanted =
to,
> or that ARIN's members are themselves part of "the existing =
establishment"
> in some way that's bad?
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.
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.
> 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.
Cheers,
-Benson
