[At-Large] RES: FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board

Vanda UOL vanda at uol.com.br
Fri Nov 26 15:57:18 UTC 2010

All candidates are friends and each one has peculiar positive and negative
points in their profiles. 

 However to be friend is not enough for support one or another candidate to
this position which took so huge effort and time to ALAC to get it. 

Have the best we can candidate is really an obligation of this group . 

I don´t vote what I really believe is not fair. I have only the task but no
rights? We don´t have liaisons anymore, so let it go,  but I don´t agree
liaisons shall have no right no vote inside their ACs. They should be full

Back to election , ALAC members need to go deeply as how candidates profile
will be adequate or not for the board - which behavior is expected for a
board member? Controlled person, lack of impulsiveness, balance and
analytical person, hard worker, strategic, independent, with lot´s of time
to dedicate to the task., no conflict of interest meaning, no contract with
internet industry, deep knowledge of the ICANN issues, good involvement with
several regions...  and with all points taking into account I must support
Carlton choice. 

 I don´t vote, but I believe I have right to express my opinion openly, and
here it is. 

Good vote to all  for the benefit of LAC and At Large  users. 

All the best 


Vanda Scartezini



-----Mensagem original-----
De: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de SAMUELS,Carlton
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 26 de novembro de 2010 12:58
Para: ALAC; At-Large Worldwide
Assunto: [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board


I have been asked about my views by colleagues outside of LACRALO. FWIW,
these are my views.....and I continue to hold them.




-----Original Message-----

From: lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of

Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:13 AM

To: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org

Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Our choice for the ICANN Board


We support Alan Greenberg.  That said, we shall not support a directed


It really comes down to how effective you would wish the At-Large appointed
director to be.  We would have missed the critical points totally if you
were to think it's about how much we like a person or how lockstep they
agree with our every idea. In context, it would be useful to remind yourself
that what we call the At-Large is very diverse.


So all other qualifications being equal, effectiveness at the Board level
rests on the personal dynamics of our choice with the people on the board.
[I still recall witnessing my first ICANN board meeting where I saw a very
attractive and bright woman being marginalized. The "Interests" simply shut
her down!].  I am drawn to dissenters.  But in this case user interests is
way too important just to dissent; having influence is much better.  We must
encourage our representative to have influence.  And then to use that
influence to mediate the more flagrant disavowal of user or consumer
interests that could arise at Board level.


ICANN's Board is consistently peopled by persons representing the
"Interests".   If you're going to have influence from a position of  one, we
believe there are three things that apply 1) To be better prepared 2) To be
more broadly knowledgeable across the various ICANN constituencies 3) Have
the ability to use 1 and 2 as tools for driving consensus along a path
consistently more favourable to user and/or consumer interests.  This is the
process of triangulation.  It is the strategic model most utilized to
succeed in the majority group when you are a minority.   This is what we
know, almost as birthright.


We do not always agree with Alan.  But to say he doesn't understand user or
consumer interests cannot be supported on fact. For example, on the
cross-ownership and related issues surrounding new gTLDs, we, as At-Large
representatives, were diametrically opposed; he was for a priori regulation
and I was for 'free trade'.  In fact, some would have looked at this and
concluded that he's more on the user side than I was on this issue.  And
while I deeply respect his views, I tend to loathe any indication of
collective punishment.  You do not penalize until and unless you have a
case.  Maybe the Board came to their conclusion by another meandering route.
But in the end, they voted my perspective.


Goes to show.


Carlton Samuels


lac-discuss-en mailing list

 <mailto:lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org




At-Large mailing list

 <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org



At-Large Official Site:  <http://atlarge.icann.org> http://atlarge.icann.org

More information about the At-Large mailing list