[NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote?

[Evan Leibovitch]

Brendler, Beau wrote:
> I don't have any problems, personally, with numbers 2 and 3 in Danny's note, but I admit point 1 got by me and is somewhat troublesome. I think the ALAC has been repeatedly told by a range of people (including board members) that a liaison is more powerful and influential in the ICANN system than a seated board member, because once someone becomes a board member their responsibility is to ICANN and not the user community, etc. Which is utter nonsense. I used to work for Disney, and one of its board members was a priest. Everyone knew why he was there, to champion "family values" and whatnot. If you have someone from the user community named to the board who is steeped in the concerns of users, then you can expect that influence to carry over into board-level decision-making
I agree fully. But here's why that paragraph doesn't bother me.

The part that concerns Danny begins, "Please note mechanisms of this
process would need careful consideration and further discussed, but
could take the form [...]"

In other words, it is yet to be discussed to death and it most certainly
will be once the issue (of board involvement) is formally raised.
Everything after that opening sentence suggests scenarios, but they're
hardly exclusive. Use of words such as "perhaps" are clearly there to
weasel out of anything resembling clear direction. It's so clumsily
worded -- maybe deliberately so -- that I can easily read an
interpretation that eliminates Danny's concern.

But it doesn't matter. Whether I agree with that paragraph or not, it's
irrelevant. If I were crafting it myself I'd use other words, or might
have left out "possible scenarios" entirely -- but IMO it's not worth
impeding the rest of the doc.

- Evan