Ross Rader wrote:
Danny - please stop repeating this. You've said it many times and its really starting to bother me. I think I've offered a fair explanation of how I will be spending my time in the next few years and that I should be given a chance to participate, as a user.
And yet... Ross, you are unknown in or to the At-Large Infrastructure. You've never participated in the RALO and were never suggested to us as a candidate. As far as the grassroots is aware, you were parachuted in because those who actually cared to step forward were deemed unsuitable in their absence. It is no coincidence that you were not even considered until Wendy was elected as the ALAC rep to the Board. I would not go so far as Danny's accusations of fraud; no regulations were broken, and it sounds like Ross *may* be able to help appoint people who have user interests in mind. I have no idea, since his name was never brought before the RALO. However, I do think that the three North American ALAC members did violate the trust placed in them -- two of them directly by the North American ALSs -- in a number of ways: 1) In the absence of suitable candidates who stepped forward, they looked outside the At-Large community and chose a familiar face -- the easy way out -- from within an existing ICANN constituency. 2) Ample time existed for them to indicate their problem to the RALO and solicit other people from within the At-Large community. No such consultation was attempted. 3) This particular position was one for which ICANN longevity was not necessarily an asset, for it is regarding selection of people rather than policies. Limiting the selection to those deeply embedded into ICANN culture eliminates acceptance to new ideas or points of view that lack the contamination of long-term ICANN exposure. If the North American ALAC reps had consulted with the RALO on appropriate criteria, perhaps they would have had a different perspective on this as well. On a personal level, I am embarrassed to be writing this as the losing candidate because it sounds like sour grapes. I want to make it clear that I have no interest in re-contesting things and I'm quite able to accept this legitimately-made decision. However, I find it unfortunate that those who who recommended me to stand for the position not only voted against me, but solicited others who were perceived to be better suited. Why recruit me in the first place, then, if I'm deemed to be an inferior choice before I'm even put forward? How did setting me up to fail serve the interest of At-Large? Maybe my lack of appreciation for the wisdom of such procedures was a reason for my being considered not yet ready to be considered. I would still suggest, however, that this process was severely deficient, in the face of past events and ongoing deep concerns about the effectiveness of ALAC in representing the point of view of the world at large. At-Large is a community distinct from registrars, registries, IP lawyers, academics, NGOs or anyone else. As such, it -- and the people who represent it within ICANN -- have a responsibility to bring in new and different points of view, not fall back on The Usual Suspects every time a challenge appears. Perhaps its leaders -- especially those who were elected by the grassroots -- should consider that unfamiliarity with the baggage of ICANN culture perhaps can be seen as an asset. I would hope that moving forward we don't continue to be seen as taking the easy way out, repeatedly preferring comfort and familiarity over energy and diversity. - Evan