I've been away for the last few days and am only now catching up on this list's email... It seems some questions have been raised as to the process by which the NA ALAC , and in fact ALAC as a whole selected the nomcom candidate from the NA region. First,let me describe the process - The NA ALAC reps held two teleconferences where we discussed the Nomcom candidates. Beau, Alan and I spent considerable time discussing the i\, the candidates and additional persons we might want to consider The candidate pool came from names proposed on the NA list, as well as persons suggested by the NA Regional reps. The breakdown was thus - one person proposed from the NA list, and 5 persons suggested from the ALAC reps. Of the 6 persons, one candidate was removed as they had been elected board liason. the rest were contacted to confirm that indeed they would be willing and able to serve the term. Three confirmed there were interested, willing and able to represent ALAC on nomcom. two top candidates were identified and a discussion took place to see if a consensus candidate could be chosen. This was not the case, as such the two were submitted to the ALAC for them to vote on. Key facts: - the two proposed candidates both were supported by more then one ALAC rep - The consensus view that developed was that a candidate should be well familiar with icann and/or able to learn about it's politics and issues, and ability to represent the user voice/view were key factors needed in a candidate. My personal choice was Ross, as i'm quite familiar with his work with the user community in Canada and his involvement in CIRA. It is his proven track record to be able to represent users on the CIRA board as well as his support for NCUC and ALAC view that led to me voting for him. In summary, I voted based on a track record in engaging users and the user community (in canada) as well as a very good understand of ICANN, it's politics and nomcom. Using the recently approved voting rules adopted by the ALAC, candidates proposed from the regions where a consensus was not possible were considered by the ALAC. A one week open voting & period was opened - where opinions were expressed by ALAC members on candidates, and voting took place.Voting closed a particular day, after which the results were announced. The existing icann bylaws state that ALAC should appoint candidates - and that was done. Though not specifically mentioned , consulation also tool place - and considerable time, and effort was taken to review candidates and elect one that fit the criteria developed. Ross, in my opinion - despite what some critics might say - has the knowledge and ability, integrity and ability to represent ALAC and users interests on the nomcom. I believe that he will serve alac well . Secondly, let me say that constant critiquing ALAC reps is not constructive at all. Personally, I have tried to bring values of consultation and dialogue between those in the NA ALS, ALAC members and other key constituencies such as NCUC, SSAC and many others . I see there is great value in collaboration - one that can serve to bring a stronger voice to users and civil society inside the complex and very political structure that is ICANN. In summary - Key appointments and nominations need to be strategic and constructive. I believe that the two candidates proposed were good, and that the better qualified and most knowledgeable person who indeed will be able to serve all users from the NA region has been selected. Can we do things better in the future - indeed we can. let's learn from this experience and build a better process for the 08/09 nomcom selection process regards Robert