Hi Alice The vote now is for the annual Board liaison position - we need to vote around now to submit the name in compliance with the Bylaws that require that we submit the names of the board liaison at least 30 days before the AGM which is in October. The Board Liaison is a 1 year term, but the current liaison can go up again. So according to the RoP that the Committee decided on after Lisbon, we have 2 elections, one for Board Liaison and one for the rest. If you recall, we had several options put to the Committee and this is the one that was chosen by the committee and put into the Rules of Procedure. But to address the concern about the time and energy - the procedure for the Board liaison is spelled out in the RoP, and it should not require much time and energy at all in San Juan. We have Nominations which close today, then a period of time for nominations to be accepted, candidate statements, etc. A period of time for discussion - all of that will be mainly online. Then the ALAC votes online. Then we announce the person. re stability - that's up to the voting members of the ALAC. The current Liaison (Vittorio) is one of the 4 nominations to date. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: alice [mailto:alice@apc.org] Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 12:38 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: At-large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Board liaison - What's the process to be selected ..? I still have a preference for no third-party
campaigning, but perhaps that is just me.
Not just for you Alan, I concur and prefer that there are no third party campaigns. And also support the secret ballot. Having said that though, it would be ideal if the committee could avoid spending so much time and energy in San Juan in yet another round of elections so soon after changing chair and again in six months vote for another new board liaison. I believe there is need for a certain degree of stability at least for the next year or so. alice . Given the high-contested election, I do have a preference for a secret ballot to minimize bad feelings, and to ensure that people
vote for who they believe is the best candidate instead of who they may feel they have to visibly support.
Alan
At 18/06/2007 10:34 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
Alan:
Thanks for the comments on the process and request of information
from the candidates.
My concern is that the process, in as much as possible - be as open and transparent as possible. Comments should, i think not only come
from the candidates - but from all those involved in at-large.
Key positions, should - wherever possible be subject to comment, consultation, and an open and transparent process. Not sure if nominations/decisions have been done that way in the past. If they haven't, then we should change them. we have the occasion now , so let's try..
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM