I still think that the vote should have stood. Even if we didn't have a meeting in time, the vote was still quorate so I really think that we should only have put one forward. ALAC doesn't know these people but we do - and that's why we voted. Elsewise, what was the point of the vote? D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 12:10 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] NomCom delegate elections Alan Greenberg wrote:
The problem for ALAC members is not likely for the regions that have only one candidate listed, but for those that have two!
*sigh* - Two candidates put themselves forward. - Their bios and nomination statements are openly available - We held a Bigpulse vote to indicate RALO member interest. - We didn't have a NARALO meeting in time (for the ALAC deadline) to choose one so we put forth both - However, the results of the regional preference are open (and, in this case, reasonably decisive) We considered the process to be transparent and democratic as possible, considering that technically our preference is only advice. What's the problem? If ALAC just wants to rubber stamp the regional preference -- and dislikes actually having to make a decision -- then why have ALAC involved in the process at all? - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac