It's going to be a little hard to know to whom I am replying due to
non-indentation of replies, but I'll do my best.
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014, Scott Leibrand wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 3:12 AM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundem...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 7:05 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
IMO the problem (for the AC, not the BoT) is that all turnover comes from
resignations and people deciding not to run again. It's very rare that an
incumbent fails to get re-elected. Given what I've observed as an AC
member of the large diversity in contribution levels from my colleagues on the
AC,
That is an observation, perhaps even a situation, but not by itself a problem.
From my perspective it simply indicates that the community does a great job
selecting winning candidates initially, those candidates go on to be solid AC
members, and therefor continue to win elections...
I agree that this does not yet seem to rise to the level of a problem.
There seems to be rather a lot of new and new/old faces (Kevin, myself,
Milton, Tina, Andrew) lately.
That is a valid interpretation, but my perspective is slightly different. I
would say it indicates that the community *likes* the people it elects to the
AC. I think
that personal popularity has a disproportionate impact in re-electing AC
members. It would be better if more information were readily available to the
membership, so
they could base their choices on things like accomplishments and voting records.
More information is always good. Four of the above five having not been
re-elected, I don't know what conclusions can be drawn about our
popularity. How well people are *liked* and questions of how popular
people are recall to me a particularly odious time in my life prior to
military service. If, in fact, that is what is going on here, perhaps we
can address that particular matter in a more targeted way than term
limits. I can recall some pretty candid discussions that have taken place.
both new and old, that's evidence to me that the membership is
re-electing members who are less effective, and we're therefore not getting the
benefit of
How is it evidence that the membership is re-electing members who are less
effective? Are you saying that YOU are less effective now then in your first two
terms? If not you, than who?
Yes, I actually am saying that. I still believe I am highly effective, but I found
myself "coasting" a bit over the fall/winter, and putting in a lot less effort
than
I had in my first few years. I believe I have mostly corrected that now, but I
definitely see the tendency to start coasting after a certain amount of time,
both in
myself and other AC members.
Well, don't do that then. Term limits are not the answer for this
situation. Surely you aren't suggesting that if terms limits were in
place, this mid-term ennui would not have occured.
new ideas and approaches, and the higher willingness to take on difficult
work, that new AC members tend to provide.
Reviewing the results of all the elections since 2007, when I was elected, I
see:
Year
Re-elected
Newly Elected
Newly appointed
NOT Re-elected
Notes
2013
4
1
1
2012
4
1
1
2011
4
1
1
3-year incumbent not re-elected
2010
3
2
1
1-year appointed incumbent not re-elected
2009
3
2
1
2008
2
3
2007
3
2
As you can see, there has only been a single full-term incumbent who was not
re-elected, and that was in a year when there were 5 incumbents on the ballot.
I'm not immediately seeing any conclusion to be inferred from this
observation.
I see that at least one new person joins the AC EVERY YEAR. Out of five open
positions a minimum 20% turnover is actually pretty fantastic.
Closer to 13% on average (2 AC members out of 15) each year (with a range of
7-20%), almost all from attrition. If we had even 3% of full-term incumbents
getting
replaced by challengers (1 every 2 years), I would be quite happy. But it's
actually less than 1%. IMO that's too low.
But higher lately, right?
I think term limits (1 year off after 2 terms) would help get more new people,
with new ideas, approaches, and energy, onto the AC, without unduly
sacrificing experience and continuity.
Of course, there may be other better ways to accomplish the same thing, so I'd
love to hear other ideas for how we can get more fresh faces onto the AC.
Maybe we could tweak the election process somehow? One idea I just had would
be to allow advisory input (some sort of straw poll) from PPML participants
that is published for the ARIN membership to review when casting their votes?
As others have asked, and you have failed to answer - what is the _problem_ we
are trying to solve here? Capable AC members being re-elected is NOT a problem.
Here are some of the problems I see with the AC. I think term limits would
help with all of them, though it wouldn't be a panacea, and it may be possible
to come up
with better solutions to each one of them:
Take these one at a time.
IMO the AC tends to be a little bit slow to incorporate new ideas and
approaches. More new faces would help with that.
Speaking as one of those new faces, I can say with some authority that I
approach the idea of floating a lot of new ideas and approaches with some
caution. I am getting a little more willing to take some risks with
experience, but a case could be made that I at least am more conservative
than many old timers.
We also tend a little bit toward becoming a
social and travel club. I don't think that is a serious problem, yet, but I
definitely worry about how many of us stay on the AC because we like our
colleagues and
because we like to travel, rather than because we like to talk about, write,
and improve ARIN policy. I definitely see that most new AC members are more
inclined to
spend our time together talking about policy than most AC members with longer
tenures.
This is a bit of a tautological approach. The f2f experience is superior
to the list in some ways. We need to travel to get f2f. We tend to like
the f2f experience. Therefore, our motivation is exclusively to be a
travel and social club. I have heard the grumbling about policy weenie
wannabies junketing about on endless boondogles, but that is not the way
it seems to me. Again, if this is a specific problem, let's air it out.
Term limits seems like a particularly ineffective approach to this one.
Maybe another solution would be to reconsider whether we really need a
15-member AC in the first place.
We did talk about this at some length. I am not against raising the
subject again.
In all of the other RIRs,
In addition to being a statement of fact, this is also an appeal to the
bandwagon, and thus an insufficient reason for action. When I have seen
such an observation floated in other fora, the response has sometimes been
that the RIR system is ideal for each region to do things in their own
way.
they simply have a policy working
group chair and co-chair, and then interested members of the community do all
of the heavy lifting on policy, and on getting a consensus in the community. An
alternative to think about (and maybe discuss in Chicago) might be to have
proposal authors and wg chairs select one or more shepherds for each policy
proposal, and
assign the shepherd the role of working with the author and community to try to
actively forge a consensus? I'm not sure if that's a good solution or not,
but it's
food for thought, anyway...
OK, I'm game. But it looks like a lot of ground to cover from here to
there. It might make a nice change from deck chairs though. Is
restructuring the AC in scope for the AC?
-Scott
John Springer
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
