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 members. 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 ALAC LAST LIAISON TO THE BOARD -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de SAMUELS,Carlton A 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. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of SAMUELS,Carlton A Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:13 AM To: lac-discuss-en@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org> lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org> http://atlarge.icann.org