>> As this discussion unfolds I thought I would make a few clarifications given
>> that the NomCom is formed by the Board. I understand that some members of
>> the community may disagree with the outcome of the NomCom?s initial slate;
>> however, an assertion of misbehavior suggests the NomCom a
I’d like to add to Paul’s caution to focus on the process vs. assuming bad
faith of the nomcom itself. Regular reviews of the process are good and in
light of the current discussions, I would expect the Board taking this fully
into account. I also appreciate the support for the petition proce
> On Oct 9, 2021, at 5:58 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Has ARIN disclosed anything about why the NomCom chose to exclude two
> obviously-qualified candidates from the ballot when they didn’t yet have 2
> candidates per open seat, and the 3 candidates they did include are all less
> well-known
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 12:53 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
> To the beset of my knowledge, membership has never been a criterion for
> eligibility to run. It is a requirement to be able to nominate and to vote.
>
> I don’t think this is a change.
>
It is not. After further research and reflection it's
Hello PPML,
As this discussion unfolds I thought I would make a few clarifications given
that the NomCom is formed by the Board. I understand that some members of the
community may disagree with the outcome of the NomCom’s initial slate; however,
an assertion of misbehavior suggests the NomCo
> It is absurd to turn away qualified candidates and it is inappropriate for
> the nominating committee to
> endeavor to deprive the membership a greater choice of candidates. In
> essence, by limiting the slate
> to the minimum number of candidates (n+1 vs. open offices), the nominating
> comm
