I guess I would say: The liaison position is, at the moment, a sure thing. The ICANN board position has yet to pass through any stage of implementation. It may take a long time before the ALAC or at-large is even ready to elect its representative to the board. So it would seem to me we should proceed as planned with the liaison election as scheduled, as we don't necessarily know how short the liaison term will end up being. Also, I think we should respond to the enthusiasm of several members of the ALAC (there are other candidates who have declared for the board liaison position in other regions) and hold elections. Beau -----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: Sep 9, 2009 8:06 PM To: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: beaubrendler@earthlink.net Subject: 7 September election for ALAC liaison to the ICANN Board
Beau, according to the NARALO's election page:
(1) "One or more candidates for the position of ALAC liaison to the ICANN Board Election to start 7 September; candidates are Alan Greenberg, Seth Reiss and Wendy Seltzer."
(2) "Unaffiliated members of NARALO are to achieve consensus regarding how their collective vote is to be cast. Beau Brendler is the representative for unaffiliated members."
I'd like to ask this preliminary question before we "unaffiliated" members begin to caucus:
Knowing that the ICANN Board has already decided that in the near future there will no longer be an at-large liason to the board (as we will instead have an at-large director), does it really make sense to elect someone to what will undoubtably be a term of very short duration? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply extend the term of the incumbent in view of these particular and unique circumstances?