Folks, This discussion seems more and more a piece of the theater of the absurd. So, if I understand correctly, we have spent months in discussing rules, we thought that we were done, but the ink is not yet dry and we want already take actions that disregard the treaty just signed. "White man speaks with forked tongue", comes immediately to my mind. Anyway, leaving this absurdity aside for a moment, there were some more substantial contributions that I would like to comment. Wolfgang wrote:
In last years NomCom we picked Jon Bing from the Oslo Internet Institute as a person who never attended ICANN meetings but with a big potential to bring fesh ideeas to the GNSO. Ask Bruce Tomkin what he thinks now after one year of Jons contirbutions. His interventions and actions are excellent. If only "CANN experience"wuld have been counted he never woould hzave been selected by NomCm and the ICANn community would have lost a very potential contributor. Absolutely correct. However, it is the role of the NomCom to bring in new people, broadening the search beyond the traditional ICANN environment. The NomCom has nominated to the Name Council somebody without ICANN experience, but I would be extremely surprised if the constituencies would elect somebody of the same type. Quite the contrary, you will found that the people that the constituencies send to NomCom are very experienced, and also very active on ICANN-related issues. So, while it would have been very appropriate for NomCom to select new people with high potential like Veronica (instead, they nominated Annette), it is not clear to me why the European ALSes should, or would, elect somebody unknown to most.
In this respect, I would like to make another comment. I do not have any doubt that Veronica could pick up rapidly and be effective. But if I were a voting member, which luckily I am not, I would be extremely puzzled to vote for somebody that I don't know which positions will take in the ALAC. I would wonder also what kind of guarantee of participation will I get from somebody who has sent to the EURALO mailing lists just one message, namely the acceptance of the candidature. You might admit that this does not show commitment. Another thing that I don't understand is the following. The terms of the ALAC representatives are staggered. This means that one person will be elected for one year, the other one for two years (please correct me if I am wrong). What is wrong in having the two more experienced members in the initial phase, and give Veronica one year of time, maybe as part of the Board (where there's no constraint on ALS membership), to understand the issues and the environment, and to participate? Then next year the decision will be based on real understanding of what the positions of the candidate are, rather than an act of faith on the person, or nationality on the passport. Can somebody explain to me why to elect a candidate who has not yet expressed position on any of the issues that ALAC is debating has become so important that we are ready even to disregard our recently signed bylaws? Is the need to have right now, and not in a year, somebody from Eastern Europe so important that it takes priority over other considerations? I don't understand. And when I don't understand, my paranoia makes me suspicious. Cheers, Roberto