2005 NANOG Elections Summary + Results

NANOG Evolution

2005 Steering Committee Candidates

Key Dates

Election Results

Program Committee Selection Process

The Evolution of NANOG

Initial 2005 Charter

May 9, 2005 - Email sent to the nanog-announce and nanog-futures lists by Merit's Interim President, Mike McPherson:

Date: Mon, 9 May 2005 15:34:43 -0400
From: "McPherson, Michael"
To: nanog-futures, nanog-announce
Cc: nanogpc, Betty Burke, Susan Harris
Subject: The evolution of NANOG
For some time there have been extensive discussions, both in person and via email, concerning the future of NANOG.  A dedicated group of individuals (including many of you) has assembled a detailed proposal for NANOG's evolution, a proposal which lays out a number of important ideas.  Merit staff are very grateful for the well-informed and constructive work put forth by the NANOG community.
We at Merit are in agreement with most of the proposed changes, although there are a few points which we feel require further discussion.  In this message I would like to outline Merit's reaction to these proposals and propose some next steps for discussion via email and at the next NANOG meeting in Seattle.  As you will see below, our intention is to move forward with these changes over the summer.
The first change you will see is one of financial transparency. Beginning with the Seattle meeting, Merit will provide an update on NANOG finances and operations at each meeting.  Look for this presentation at every future NANOG meeting; it will take place during the Sunday Special Community Meeting in Seattle.  Information will also be posted on nanog.org.
We support the formation of a Steering Committee which will provide overall guidance for NANOG operations, appoint the Program Committee, and appoint the mailing list administrator panel.  The Steering Committee would consist of six members elected by the NANOG community and one appointed by Merit.  We propose that an election process be developed and that the first Steering Committee be elected during the summer of 2005, to begin serving by the Fall NANOG meeting.
We support the formation of a Program Committee appointed by the Steering Committee.  Our experience leads us to believe that a larger committee will be better able to handle the heavy workload, so we suggest that the Program Committee consist of 16 members  (plus one member appointed by Merit).  
A smooth transition from the current committee to a new one is critical to ensure the success of upcoming meetings.  We propose that the current Program Committee continue as presently constituted through the Fall NANOG meeting (except that the three open positions would be filled through appointment by the current committee after an open nomination process).  This will allow time for the Steering Committee to be elected and to appoint a new Program Committee.  
In order to provide continuity and preserve institutional memory of the programming process, half (or more, at the discretion of the Steering Committee) of the members of the first reconstituted Program Committee would be selected from among those current Program Committee members willing to continue service, and the remainder would be new appointments from the community at large.  We propose that Steve Feldman continue his capable leadership as Program Committee chair for the first year to help the new committee get established.
We recommend that a member of the Steering Committee serve ex officio on the Program Committee, and that the chair of the Program Committee serve ex officio on the Steering Committee.  These liaison roles will help ensure that the activities of the two groups are coordinated.
We also support the change to mailing list administration, a change already partially implemented.  We propose three panel members appointed by the Steering Committee and one appointed by Merit.
We seek further discussion on the subject of membership.  We at Merit believe that NANOG's success is due in no small part to its informality, an informality which mirrors other technical activities related to the Internet.  We believe that addition of a paid membership category will dilute the influence of those who make the effort and take the time to participate in NANOG's main activity, the meetings.  We propose that eligibility to vote in NANOG elections be determined solely by registration for NANOG meetings.  We look forward to discussing this question in Seattle.
Finally, although NANOG is a community of professionals, it is also a Merit business activity and not a separate organization.  Merit accepts the risks, both financial and otherwise, created by NANOG.  Merit staff are responsible first to Merit's Board of Directors for these financial and risk issues.  In order to exercise our responsibility to our Board we must retain final authority over NANOG operations and finances, including representing NANOG to other organizations, negotiating and executing agreements with vendors, and selecting hosts and sites.  We do not expect this to be a problem in practice, however, as we intend to work with the new Steering Committee and Program Committee on the presumption that the members of the NANOG community know best what they need from NANOG.  We are confident that the goals of community guidance and transparency can be achieved without abrogating our responsibility to Merit's Board.
You can read a draft of a proposed new NANOG Charter and action plan at http://www.nanog.org/evolution.html.*  You will also find a link to the most recent NANOG-reform draft bylaws document for reference.  We have adopted considerable language from that document, into which so much effort was put.  We thank those who provided that foundation and have participated in the discussion so far, and we encourage everyone to participate in the continuing evolution of NANOG.  We are excited about moving NANOG into its future. 
See you at the NANOG Futures session in Seattle on Tuesday, 17 May.


*This information was lost in the transition from Merit to NewNOG.

2005 Steering Committee Candidates

The following individuals were the 2005 Steering Committee candidates - six are to be elected :

  • Joe Abley, ISC
  • Randy Bush, IIJ
  • Christopher Chin, UC Berkeley
  • Ron da Silva, Time Warner Cable
  • Vince Fuller, Cisco
  • Steve Gibbard, PCH
  • Daniel Golding, The Burton Group
  • Martin Hannigan, Verisign
  • Dorian Kim, Verio
  • Mark Kosters, VeriSign
  • Jared Mauch, Verio
  • Chris Morrow, UUNET/MCI
  • William B. Norton, Equinix
  • Philip Smith, Cisco
  • Josh Snowhorn,Terremark
  • Dave Wodelet, Shaw Communications
  • Lixia Zhang, UCLA

Key Dates

June 15, 2005 - 2005 Charter based on community input is available.

July 12, 2005 - Steering Committee Elections opened.

August 27, 2005 - members of first NANOG Steering Committee announced.

September 29, 2005 - Program Committee selection process announced.

Election Results

Over 1800 people were eligible to vote, with eligibility based on having attended at least one NANOG meeting in the past two years, i.e., between fall 2003 (Chicago, NANOG 29) and spring 2005 (Seattle, NANOG 34). 

Of those who were eligible to vote, 319 completed the registration process. Of those, 260 actually voted. Voters could choose up to six (6) candidates.

Steering Committee Elected 2005

Chris Morrow, UUNET/MCI

William B. Norton, Equinix

Joe Abley, ISC

Randy Bush, IIJ

Philip Smith, Cisco

Jared Mauch, Verio

Candidate Votes

Chris Morrow, UUNET/MCI 119

William B. Norton, Equinix 117

Joe Abley, ISC 114

Randy Bush, IIJ 104

Philip Smith, Cisco 96

Jared Mauch, Verio 85

Martin Hannigan, Verisign 75

Daniel Golding, The Burton Group 72

Ron da Silva, Time Warner Cable 69

Steve Gibbard, PCH 68

Dorian Kim, Verio 67

Josh Snowhorn, Terremark 64

Vince Fuller, Cisco 52

Lixia Zhang, UCLA 50

Mark Kosters, VeriSign 41

Dave Wodelet, Shaw Communications 36

Christopher Chin, UC Berkeley 26

Program Committee Selection Process

adopted by the Steering Committee,
29 September, 2005


  • Form the best possible Program Committee from the available candidate pool
  • Make the process manageable and finite
  • Set good precedents and form a repeatable process
  • Have the full Steering Committee making the final selections
  • Involve the current Program Committee
  • Finish with exactly eight terms ending each year, as the charter seems to require.

Part 1: Create a short-list of new candidates

Who: Current PC and SC members 

The goal of this step is to produce an ordered, annotated list of the top new candidates.

  • Everyone rates each candidate, sends to PC chair. (rating values are "good", "bad", "neutral", "no opinion".)
  • PC chair compiles ratings, produces summary.
  • discuss these candidates, via conference call and mail
  • result: annotated list, becomes recommendation to SC

Part 2: Decide which current members to retain

Who: Steering committee subgroup 

This step should be done by those SC members not currently on or standing for a position on the PC. 

It may be done concurrently with Part 1, as there are no interdependencies. The SC subgroup should accept private comments from any interested parties (including the current and prospective PC members), and may solicit other input as needed. 

The results should be:

  • A list of 8 current members to keep for 1-year terms
  • A list of 0 to 4 current members to keep for 2-year terms.

Part 3: Final selection

Who: Full steering committee 

After part 2, there will be between 4 and 8 open slots, which the SC should fill from the list of new volunteers giving due consideration to the rcommendations produced in part 1. These new members will have two-year terms. 

final - 10/3/05