Evan First, there was no warning about "potty mouth". I hope that no-one would even consider obscene language on the list, and it never crossed my mind that I'd have to warn against that! There WAS a reminder to keep the discussions civilized and professional according to the Rules of Procedure adopted by the ALAC after wide and extensive consultation with the At Large. The ALAC haven't said anything pro or con about having this or that person or not, just that we need to create the position according to the Rules! Is the fact that he was suggested for a position that currently doesn't exist and we are taking steps to create the position somehow indicate to you "However, this is ALAC, where no good deed goes unpunished. If ALAC won't have Jon, I suspect that NARALO will.’ This indicates exactly the opposite to me. To me, it indicates that the At Large and the ALAC have procedures which we follow. Transparency and democracy (cherished values in NARALO) require that the published processes be followed and be seen to be followed, and positions aren't created from whole cloth to put people into without a verifiable process. Or would you prefer that a few of us huddle together, appoint a person and announce it on the list? When no-one knew that the position was available? That would not be transparent or democratic. And this is NOT pro or con the actual person or persons. Stuff like this takes so much time away from actually doing things. The process is simple. Beau or someone writes a proposal - that the ALAC create this position, and why. The ALAC discusses and comes to a decision, via consensus or voting. We tell people - we created (or not) this position. If we created it, we then say - here's the names suggested. We discuss again , come to a decision, via consensus or voting. Won't take more than a couple weeks max and a few emails. But lately we always have to defend the process, we have to waste huge amounts of time debating stuff that isn't even factual. Like saying that "the ALAC won't have Jon" - that isn't a fact, that's totally premature. The workload has increased 10 fold, and most of it is irrelevant to getting anything done. And it is turning people off. We need to stop this sort of thing and focus on getting things done. Sincerely Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 11:06 To: Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Revised List of Candidates [ re-routed from ALAC to the NA list because there have already been warnings there about being potty mouthed ] Brendler, Beau wrote:

I simply intended to try to bring a really bright guy into the fold to be helpful to the ALAC (and to me), not to create a debate about what his title should be, procedure, rules, etc.

Couldn't have said it better. Your efforts to improve At-Large's capacity to make informed judgments are greatly appreciated in some corners of this community. However, this is ALAC, where no good deed goes unpunished. If ALAC won't have Jon, I suspect that NARALO will. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.0/1077 - Release Date: 10/18/2007 09:54 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.0/1077 - Release Date: 10/18/2007 09:54