Karl Auerbach wrote:
I would work against any system that required a candidate seeking position on ICANN's board to obtain approval from any ALAC/RALO/ALS as a condition of having his/her name on the ballot. Nor should the ALAC/RALO/ALS system have the ability to simply place names on the ballot in any way that is less difficult than that faced by an independent candidate.
I would simply recall the actual Board resolution:
'IT IS RESOLVED THAT the recommendation of the BRWG (Board Review Working Group) to add one voting director appointed from the At-Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors, and removing the present ALAC Liaison to the Board, is approved in principle for implementation.[...]'
By my reading, this explicitly directs the ICANN-defined At-Large Community (not the general public) to fill the position; what's left now is for the components of this Community -- the ALAC, RALOs, ALSs and individual community members -- to define a selection process that best reflects their collective wishes. I'm quite comfortable with that, and have already started working on an At-Large selection process. You're welcome to work against the letter and the spirit of the resolution, and to yell a hearty "none of the above" to any good-faith responses we come up with. I have more productive uses of my time, though I'll be happy to enter the debate -- to oppose your opposition, so to speak -- if your POV is seriously considered by the Board or implementation staff. - Evan