Re: [ALAC] NomCom delegate elections
The problem for ALAC members is not likely for the regions that have only one candidate listed, but for those that have two! Alan At 09/09/2009 11:18 AM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Hi Jose,
this is just to confirm that EURALO nominated and will strongly support Olivier Crepin-Leblond as their delegate for/at the NomCom.
Best,
Wolf EURALO chair
jsalgueiro@cantv.net wrote Wed, 9 Sep 2009 10:44:
I'd like to know the RALOS choices for their delagates before voting. I wont like to vote against them. I only know the choice of LACRALO and I'm not sure if everyone else knows it.
Jose Ovidio Salgueiro
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net
Digitale Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch -
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
_______________________________________________ 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
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
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
The NARALO position IS "just advice, but rather valuable advice. I would like to think that most ALAC members will not "rubber stamp" the regional preference, but more accurately support it unless they have specific reasons to do otherwise. However, I must apologize, in that I just checked the formal announcement of this vote and Staff DID include the regional advice for LAC and NA. Specifically:
LACRALO recommended José Ovidio Salgueiro as their preferred candidate for regional NomCom Delegate
NARALO recommended Eduardo Diaz as their preferred candidate for regional NomCom Delegate
Sorry for stirring up a debate when there should not have been one. Alan At 09/09/2009 12:09 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
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
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Thompson, Darlene