[144976] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Duncan)
Fri Sep 23 01:48:07 2011
From: Jim Duncan <jduncan@juniper.net>
To: "vixie@isc.org" <vixie@isc.org>, "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:40:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20110923045712.000017c2@unknown>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Paul (and NANOG readers, because Paul actually already knows this),
With my parliamentarian hat on:
A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum num=
ber of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates =
for election. it should never be a gating function; it is an important safe=
guard to allow the nomination of qualified individuals outside the nominati=
ng committee and "from the floor" before votes are cast.=20
In the corporate world, nominating committees, for good or bad, have become=
instruments for rigorously constraining the slate of candidates for execut=
ive offices. The practice has become so common and widespread that many ass=
ume it is proper in all situations (much in the same way that the US Congre=
ss' standing rules modifying the "table" motion have caused the public to b=
elieve incorrectly that "tabling an issue" is the same as "postponing it in=
definitely"; tabling correctly means the issue will be moved to a later tim=
e in the current meeting.
Although organizations may decide for themselves how a nominating committee=
will operate, it is inconsistent with the general principles of parliament=
ary process -- whichever standard you choose, Robert's, Sturgis, or another=
-- for all candidates to be forced to pass through the gauntlet of the nom=
inating committee. In a perfect world, the nominating committee assists wit=
h preparations for elections, finds suitable candidates (at least one for e=
very vacant position) and possibly identifies and cultivates future leaders=
hip for the organization.
More than my two cents' worth, but I got involved in parliamentary process =
exactly because of misunderstandings and misapplications like what I think =
may be happening here. I'll be happy to explain further, if needed or desi=
red.
I now return you to the more traditional discussions for this mailing list.=
;-)
Jim
--
James N. Duncan, CISSP
Manager, Juniper Networks Security Incident Response Team (Juniper SIRT)
E-mail: jduncan@juniper.net Mobile: +1 919 608 0748
PGP key fingerprint: E09E EA55 DA28 1399 75EB D6A2 7092 9A9C 6DC3 1821
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:vixie@isc.org]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 12:57 AM=0A=
To: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building =
a nationwide network
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500
Benson Schliesser <bensons@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.
>=20
> 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.
--=20
Paul Vixie
