[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments

[Evan Leibovitch]

Ross Rader wrote:

> Danny - please stop repeating this. You've said it many times and its 
> really starting to bother me. I think I've offered a fair explanation of 
> how I will be spending my time in the next few years and that I should 
> be given a chance to participate, as a user.

And yet... Ross, you are unknown in or to the At-Large Infrastructure.
You've never participated in the RALO and were never suggested to us as
a candidate. As far as the grassroots is aware, you were parachuted in
because those who actually cared to step forward were deemed unsuitable
in their absence. It is no coincidence that you were not even considered
until Wendy was elected as the ALAC rep to the Board.

I would not go so far as Danny's accusations of fraud; no regulations
were broken, and it sounds like Ross *may* be able to help appoint
people who have user interests in mind. I have no idea, since his name
was never brought before the RALO. However, I do think that the three
North American ALAC members did violate the trust placed in them -- two
of them directly by the North American ALSs -- in a number of ways:

1) In the absence of suitable candidates who stepped forward, they
looked outside the At-Large community and chose a familiar face -- the
easy way out -- from within an existing ICANN constituency.

2) Ample time existed for them to indicate their problem to the RALO and
solicit other people from within the At-Large community. No such
consultation was attempted.

3) This particular position was one for which ICANN longevity was not
necessarily an asset, for it is regarding selection of people rather
than policies. Limiting the selection to those deeply embedded into
ICANN culture eliminates acceptance to new ideas or points of view that
lack the contamination of long-term ICANN exposure. If the North
American ALAC reps had consulted with the RALO on appropriate criteria,
perhaps they would have had a different perspective on this as well.

On a personal level, I am embarrassed to be writing this as the losing
candidate because it sounds like sour grapes. I want to make it clear
that I have no interest in re-contesting things and I'm quite able to
accept this legitimately-made decision. However, I find it unfortunate
that those who who recommended me to stand for the position not only
voted against me, but solicited others who were perceived to be better
suited. Why recruit me in the first place, then, if I'm deemed to be an
inferior choice before I'm even put forward? How did setting me up to
fail serve the interest of At-Large?

Maybe my lack of appreciation for the wisdom of such procedures was a
reason for my being considered not yet ready to be considered. I would
still suggest, however, that this process was severely deficient, in the
face of past events and ongoing deep concerns about the effectiveness of
ALAC in representing the point of view of the world at large. At-Large
is a community distinct from registrars, registries, IP lawyers,
academics, NGOs or anyone else. As such, it -- and the people who
represent it within ICANN -- have a responsibility to bring in new and
different points of view, not fall back on The Usual Suspects every time
a challenge appears. Perhaps its leaders -- especially those who were
elected by the grassroots -- should consider that unfamiliarity with the
baggage of ICANN culture perhaps can be seen as an asset.

I would hope that moving forward we don't continue to be seen as taking
the easy way out, repeatedly preferring comfort and familiarity over
energy and diversity.

- Evan