[144978] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Sep 23 04:07:51 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <171BF180-F19E-49A0-9B78-977F56B09A3E@queuefull.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:01:23 -0700
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
>=20
> 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.
>=20
This statement ignores the existence of the petition process and the =
relatively low threshold required to get a candidate not approved or =
selected by the nomcom onto the ballot if there is even a very limited =
desire to do so.
> 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.
>=20
My inclination is that the lack of participation generally indicates =
that the majority are not upset by the way ARIN is doing things. I know =
that the beginning of my participation in ARIN was the result of my =
deciding that some of the ways ARIN was doing things needed changing.
>> 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.
>=20
OK, so you are aware of the petition process after all. That makes your =
statement at the top of this message somewhat perplexing.
I agree that increased member participation would be a good thing.
I do not believe that including petition responses from people who =
aren't willing to join PPML even if it's just long enough to support the =
petition in question would be useful. It takes almost no effort to join =
PPML, support a petition, and then leave PPML if you are that determined =
not to participate. Further, I think that it is reasonable to expect at =
least a modicum of participation in the policy process in order to =
participate in the petition process. Requiring supporters to be on PPML =
at the time they support the petition seems like a reasonable threshold =
to me. Finally, absent some mechanism such as requiring a PPML =
subscription, it might be somewhat difficult to avoid petition stuffing.
Owen
