[At-Large] ALAC Positions open for nominations 2007-2008

[Patrick Vande Walle]

Quite agree with Carlos that the direct election of ALAC members by the
ALSes makes the whole nomcom process unecessary, for ALAC at least. Let
us hope (and ask)  that the  upcoming nomcom review will suggest changes
in that direction.

I find it a bit strange to invoke the need for diversity within
constituencies to justify the role of the nomcom. Quite to the
contrary,  I think we need clearly identified and homogenous groups.
ICANN is a framework for negotiation between industry, government and
users/customers. If we cannot clearly identify which hat people wear,
who they work for, it only generates suspicion on their agenda.
 
Patrick

carlos aguirre wrote:
> Roberto.
>              First, (repeat)I strongly agree with Wendy and Beau words.
>
>              Second, When the people express their own feelings or
> opinions (like Evan case), NEVER could be treated as a discriminator
> apriori, except when their words had given this meaning. We can think
> in different way.
>        
>              I particularly think that the true expresion of democracy
> is the people who result elect after a valid votation per their
> equals. I am not a discriminator for think in that sense.
>  
>              The elected persons by NomCom are very special and
> important, big skills and capables, "but in some cases" they  not
> fullfil the necessaries conditions to be elected like ALAC member,
> according bylaws. I think Nom Com had in account the personel bios and
> conditions but never seen (in my opinion) the bylaws of ALAC (I
> repeat, in some cases).
>  
>              I consider, also, the ALAC bylaws must be changed,
> specialy after RALOs, this is not the first time that I say. 
>              I could say a lot of things more, as a Lawyer, but It
> seems to me, we are not talking  about law here, I think is only about
> common sense and Intellectual honestity about  meanings of concepts 
> or words.
>              I respect your opinions, because, as I said, we can have
> different opinions.
>