Karl Auerbach wrote:
I am concerned that the initial comments suggest a tendency for the ALAC to select ALAC - insider selects insider - which is not at all what was on my mind when I was arguing for "publicly chosen directors" on the review Working Group.
When it was time to actually start thinking about how to do this -- at least in the sessions I have attended -- there was explicit concern about keeping this from being an insiders' club. Experience with At-Large would certainly work in someone's favour in understanding the issues and viewpoints put forward, and we can't eliminate the track records of candidates with a demonstrated ability to "get" At-Large. Still, it's clear that familiarity can not be the only criteria or even a dominant one. I'm actually surprised that you would say what you did, having looked at the ideas that have started to be put forward such as https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?draft_procedure_for_appointmen... I think that this first attempt hardly puts most of the decision-making in ALAC's hands. Having said that, let's not forget that two-thirds of ALAC are themselves selected as leaders by the grassroots, so they shouldn't be completely out of the process completely. Now... if you believe that the one-third NomComm component on ALAC provides a stability and continuity, that the grassroots itself cannot be trusted to run the whole show... then you want to maximize the role of ALAC. If you believe that the grassroots is perfectly capable of doing it themselves, then you want little or no role for ALAC and more in the hands of the ALSs and individual RALO members. That choice, ultimately, may be the toughest one of this process. - Evan