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

carlos dionisio aguirre carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com
Fri Nov 26 16:25:57 UTC 2010

Agree with Vanda in almost evErything. I consider its words were very objective. However I particularly support a different candidate. 

Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanda UOL <vanda at uol.com.br>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:57:18 
To: <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>; <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: [ALAC] RES: [At-Large] FW: Our choice for the ICANN Board

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
 SAMUELS,Carlton A
 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
 LACRALO vote.
 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
 ALAC mailing list
 ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
 At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
 ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

More information about the At-Large mailing list