On 18 September 2012 09:57, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 this is a very reasonable position. We have to have rotation and new faces all the time in all positions.
As someone standing for re-election, I have an obvious bias in the discussion. However, even were I not, I would be intrigued -- and a little unsettled -- by the concept of "change for the sake of change". There are term limits for many positions within At-Large leadership -- I am in my last of two terms as ALAC member -- and I am curious to know the rationale behind "new faces all the time" in a manner that exceeds both the intent and the practice of these reasonable limits. This is now my sixth year within ICANN as a volunteer and I am only now finding a comfort level with the many layers and complexities of working within ICANN's policy development. That may just mean that I'm slow, but I would suggest that ICANN possesses a level of internal complexity rivalling that of a UN or government bureacuracy. It takes time just to learn. Insisting on rapid rotation -- for the sake of rapid rotation -- ensures that ALAC leadership will never have the depth necessary to deal with issues that matter to Internet end-users. Our adversaries -- those who dispense with the public interest because of financial gain -- have no such limits. Indeed there are many within the domain industry who have been involved with ICANN since its inception and are acutely aware of its inner workings and how to manipulate them for gain. Given our reasonable levels of term limits our people will never achieve the level of personal entrenchment enjoyed by industry, but I would suggest that the rapid rotation suggested by some here would be absolutely devastating to the ability of ICANN At-Large to assert itself in the corridors of power. If there are issues with the performance of individuals running for re-election, general complaints about leadership or direction, or the ascendency of people advocating fresh priorities or changes of strategy, by all means let's bring them forward and engage in useful debate and an informed election. I welcome such engagement. But I know that there are a number of issues that I personally am involved with and consider "unfinished business" -- unfinished because they just take so long to process through ICANN. The others running for re-election have their own priorities in this regard. I think it would be a shame -- and damaging to the At-Large cause -- if many of these efforts are forced to pause while being rebooted or re-learned simply because of an election based on theory that looks good on paper but works poorly in the negotiations room. Two years from now, because of term limits, I know for certain that I will be off not only the executive but my ALAC position. I will welcome my replacement. I fully understand and appreciate the need to share the load and encourage new voices, both as a matter of outreach and keeping At-Large constantly in touch. But I suggest that there is a balance to be struck between continuity and refreshment, and that the balance currently in place within ALAC is a good one. Going more narrowly than term limits to assert change for its own sake does a disservice to incumbents and all of At-Large. In most organizations of which I'm aware -- whether corporation, government or NPO -- frequent changes of leadership does not indicate stability or success. - Evan