Although I believe I have done so already, I am still being asked for my views of the Board Liaison election. In my view, we have a stellar list of candidates. And save and except for one person, all others are well-known to the At-Large community. They have a body of work in contribution to the At-Large agenda that can withstand favourable scrutiny. In my view, the best approach to selection is to release all RALO-appointed ALAC members "from the whip" and allow a free vote. In my view, the attributes of the best candidate and nature of the work required of Board Liaison are all the same required of a voting ALAC-appointed board member. Let me explain again. Let us be clear: the ICANN Board is a creature of the American corporate culture, regardless of the accents at the top. We would love to think all members are globalists and fashioned in a milieu that produces an enhanced connection to the civil society agenda. The reality is that most are corporatists, representing well-defined corporate interests. So to thrive in this ecosystem, a Board Liaison representing the At-Large interest or a Board Member representing the At-Large interest must be packaged a certain way. In my experience, the best results when working for a cause on a Board of Management comes from being sure of the principles you support, listening well, keenly observing your fellow members, be knowledgeable about their causes and even more knowledgeable about the Board agenda, being collegial and affable without being supine and having the gift of argument to persuade. And the person must effortlessly retain the collective trust of the At-Large community. In my view, you don't get too far by asking candidates to declare fealty to the ALAC but rather to look for demonstrable attachments to the At-Large agenda. For declarations of fealty would inevitably produce what I would do when I was a lad and asked to recite the affirmation of faith in the Anglican - Episcopal - community: "I believe in one God, Father Almighty.......". It was sufficient to recite it to pass muster with the priest and my duties as an acolyte. No, I do not believe that a Board Liaison should only act when specifically instructed by the ALAC. Hell, for the most part, we barely know what the ALAC agenda - all of the ALAC - is! Much less the At-Large! This is where principle and knowledge of the issues come to play. My preferred Board Liaison must be grounded to principle but MUST have a sense of what is happening in the room to make an argument to shape, even persuade others to a view. That is the argument and diplomatic skills test. You must have the ability to move and be able to move at Internet speed, not at the rhythm that instructions will come from At-Large thru ALAC. This is the reason for knowledge of issues and grounding to principle. And you must be able to communicate what you think and how it connects to principle so that others can catch up. In short, I do not want or wish an empty vessel as either Board Liaison or At-Large voting Board Member. Beyond the statement of candidates but certainly with knowledge of their work and from close observation over time, I believe it is possible to make the right choice. Carlton Samuels