Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments
Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis." These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster. I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership. Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged. We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
Danny, As you have always been one of the strongest voices in counseling us to focus on policy rather than infighting, I hope you will also help us to leave behind personal attacks and work with us to make the ALAC more responsive to the at-large community. With work, I hope we can minimize such feelings of miscommunication in the future. Thanks, --Wendy Danny Younger wrote:
Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis."
These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster.
I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership.
Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged.
We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/
Wendy, As Robert on the NCUC list has revealed that you were one of the parties consulted in a process that led to the removal of a candidate from the voting roster, I can understand why you might wish to bury the issue. Sorry, but electoral fraud, an illegal interference with the process of an election, is a serious matter that can't just be swept under the carpet like it never happened. Removing a candidate from the roster for no legitimate reason is illegal interference. It should not be condoned on the pretext of needing to move on. regards, Danny --- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Danny,
As you have always been one of the strongest voices in counseling us to focus on policy rather than infighting, I hope you will also help us to leave behind personal attacks and work with us to make the ALAC more responsive to the at-large community. With work, I hope we can minimize such feelings of miscommunication in the future.
Thanks, --Wendy
Danny Younger wrote:
Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis."
These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster.
I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership.
Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged.
We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/
____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
If this were an appointment that were committed to a public election, then there would indeed be grounds for complaints of interference. As it was one left to the complete discretion of the ALAC, which made no promise to consider rosters of candidates, I don't understand the accusations. You may wish to seek changes to the ICANN bylaws, or to the operating procedures of the RALO or the ALAC, but I don't see how attacking the individuals helps understand either what went wrong or what needs to be changed. For example: the current structure gives the NA RALO no binding power, such that its representatives were free to go beyond the NA RALO in selecting and evaluating nominees for the NomCom, and so they sought advice from multiple sources and ultimately made their own recommendations. Since that process left NA participants feeling disenfranchised, let's find a way to improve both communications and the structural participation of NA participants in the ALAC processes. Perhaps procedures should be changed so NA ALAC reps are bound to follow recommendations from the NARALO, as Darlene has suggested we look to LACRALO. Perhaps the RALO should develop a procedure by which it can indicate its [consensus, majority, other] commands to ALAC representatives. I'm hardly trying to bury the issue. I'm hoping it can yet be a source of progress rather than mere argumentation. --Wendy Danny Younger wrote:
Wendy,
As Robert on the NCUC list has revealed that you were one of the parties consulted in a process that led to the removal of a candidate from the voting roster, I can understand why you might wish to bury the issue.
Sorry, but electoral fraud, an illegal interference with the process of an election, is a serious matter that can't just be swept under the carpet like it never happened. Removing a candidate from the roster for no legitimate reason is illegal interference. It should not be condoned on the pretext of needing to move on.
regards, Danny
--- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Danny,
As you have always been one of the strongest voices in counseling us to focus on policy rather than infighting, I hope you will also help us to leave behind personal attacks and work with us to make the ALAC more responsive to the at-large community. With work, I hope we can minimize such feelings of miscommunication in the future.
Thanks, --Wendy
Danny Younger wrote:
Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis."
These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster.
I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership.
Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged.
We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter.
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/
____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/
Wendy, You are correct. Matters were left to the complete discretion of the ALAC, the champion of the user interest, that in its wisdom elected the best possible user representatives from the registry and registrar communities. Perhaps next year you can elect VeriSign's Chuck Gomes to serve as your user representative. --- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
If this were an appointment that were committed to a public election, then there would indeed be grounds for complaints of interference. As it was one left to the complete discretion of the ALAC, which made no promise to consider rosters of candidates, I don't understand the accusations.
You may wish to seek changes to the ICANN bylaws, or to the operating procedures of the RALO or the ALAC, but I don't see how attacking the individuals helps understand either what went wrong or what needs to be changed.
For example: the current structure gives the NA RALO no binding power, such that its representatives were free to go beyond the NA RALO in selecting and evaluating nominees for the NomCom, and so they sought advice from multiple sources and ultimately made their own recommendations. Since that process left NA participants feeling disenfranchised, let's find a way to improve both communications and the structural participation of NA participants in the ALAC processes. Perhaps procedures should be changed so NA ALAC reps are bound to follow recommendations from the NARALO, as Darlene has suggested we look to LACRALO. Perhaps the RALO should develop a procedure by which it can indicate its [consensus, majority, other] commands to ALAC representatives.
I'm hardly trying to bury the issue. I'm hoping it can yet be a source of progress rather than mere argumentation.
--Wendy
Danny Younger wrote:
Wendy,
As Robert on the NCUC list has revealed that you were one of the parties consulted in a process that led to the removal of a candidate from the voting roster, I can understand why you might wish to bury the issue.
Sorry, but electoral fraud, an illegal interference with the process of an election, is a serious matter that can't just be swept under the carpet like it never happened. Removing a candidate from the roster for no legitimate reason is illegal interference. It should not be condoned on the pretext of needing to move on.
regards, Danny
--- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Danny,
As you have always been one of the strongest voices in counseling us to focus on policy rather than infighting, I hope you will also help us to leave behind personal attacks and work with us to make the ALAC more responsive to the at-large community. With work, I hope we can minimize such feelings of miscommunication in the future.
Thanks, --Wendy
Danny Younger wrote:
Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis."
These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster.
I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership.
Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged.
We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/
____________________________________________________________________________________
Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/
____________________________________________________________________________________ Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC
Danny Younger wrote:
Wendy,
You are correct. Matters were left to the complete discretion of the ALAC, the champion of the user interest, that in its wisdom elected the best possible user representatives from the registry and registrar communities.
Perhaps next year you can elect VeriSign's Chuck Gomes to serve as your user representative.
Danny - please stop repeating this. You've said it many times and its really starting to bother me. I think I've offered a fair explanation of how I will be spending my time in the next few years and that I should be given a chance to participate, as a user. This was never an issue when you were in the employ of register.com, why are you making it an issue now? I understand that you have issues about the process, but I really don't understand why you are making it an issue about me. -ross
Ross Rader wrote:
Danny - please stop repeating this. You've said it many times and its really starting to bother me. I think I've offered a fair explanation of how I will be spending my time in the next few years and that I should be given a chance to participate, as a user.
And yet... Ross, you are unknown in or to the At-Large Infrastructure. You've never participated in the RALO and were never suggested to us as a candidate. As far as the grassroots is aware, you were parachuted in because those who actually cared to step forward were deemed unsuitable in their absence. It is no coincidence that you were not even considered until Wendy was elected as the ALAC rep to the Board. I would not go so far as Danny's accusations of fraud; no regulations were broken, and it sounds like Ross *may* be able to help appoint people who have user interests in mind. I have no idea, since his name was never brought before the RALO. However, I do think that the three North American ALAC members did violate the trust placed in them -- two of them directly by the North American ALSs -- in a number of ways: 1) In the absence of suitable candidates who stepped forward, they looked outside the At-Large community and chose a familiar face -- the easy way out -- from within an existing ICANN constituency. 2) Ample time existed for them to indicate their problem to the RALO and solicit other people from within the At-Large community. No such consultation was attempted. 3) This particular position was one for which ICANN longevity was not necessarily an asset, for it is regarding selection of people rather than policies. Limiting the selection to those deeply embedded into ICANN culture eliminates acceptance to new ideas or points of view that lack the contamination of long-term ICANN exposure. If the North American ALAC reps had consulted with the RALO on appropriate criteria, perhaps they would have had a different perspective on this as well. On a personal level, I am embarrassed to be writing this as the losing candidate because it sounds like sour grapes. I want to make it clear that I have no interest in re-contesting things and I'm quite able to accept this legitimately-made decision. However, I find it unfortunate that those who who recommended me to stand for the position not only voted against me, but solicited others who were perceived to be better suited. Why recruit me in the first place, then, if I'm deemed to be an inferior choice before I'm even put forward? How did setting me up to fail serve the interest of At-Large? Maybe my lack of appreciation for the wisdom of such procedures was a reason for my being considered not yet ready to be considered. I would still suggest, however, that this process was severely deficient, in the face of past events and ongoing deep concerns about the effectiveness of ALAC in representing the point of view of the world at large. At-Large is a community distinct from registrars, registries, IP lawyers, academics, NGOs or anyone else. As such, it -- and the people who represent it within ICANN -- have a responsibility to bring in new and different points of view, not fall back on The Usual Suspects every time a challenge appears. Perhaps its leaders -- especially those who were elected by the grassroots -- should consider that unfamiliarity with the baggage of ICANN culture perhaps can be seen as an asset. I would hope that moving forward we don't continue to be seen as taking the easy way out, repeatedly preferring comfort and familiarity over energy and diversity. - Evan
Ross Rader ha scritto:
This was never an issue when you were in the employ of register.com, why are you making it an issue now? I understand that you have issues about the process, but I really don't understand why you are making it an issue about me.
As I also criticized this appointment, let me clarify my reasoning, which is somewhat different from Danny's. I think that you would do a great job in the Nomcom, and I believe that you could separate your employment from your activity in this position. However, I am afraid that in the future, whenever the ALAC will take a position on a policy issue that is by chance in favour of registrars or registries, the opposing camps will start to claim that there are deals behind the scenes, that the ALAC is not impartial, and so on. I do not see any easy way to counter these allegiations, and so I am concerned about the chance that they might become (or be made become) louder and louder. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Hi--I hope Ross can get up to speed with NARALO by getting on the NARALO list and participating, he doesn't have to be connected with an ALS, he can be an independent, like me! :-) If he takes advice from NARALO and wears a "user hat" I think he could be a strong voice for NA users at the NomCom. Of course we will never know because NomCom activities are absolutely secret. But I do think that, at least on the face of it, it is odd that ALAC would elect him to take a *user* seat on Nomcom. I note that when Nomcom itself doesn't think it has enough candidates for appointments, it announces the fact and extends the deadline. Maybe we had no choice about extending the deadline, but surely there was time for ALAC to ask NARALO to quickly send out one more plea to its ALS constituency to get some resumes to ALAC. I think putting people on NomCom is one of the most important things ALAC does. NomCom is the kingmaker. Just my ideas. JP Ex-ALAC from NA
A few points about the election and this discussion, and then I'd like to wind this up. 1. The ALAC was entitled appoint the NomComm representatives in whatever manner they wished. So, Danny, to your point that creating a "short list" was not an option, I think you are mistaken. 2. Transparency solves most problems within ICANN, and this issue is no different. The whole hullaballoo could have been avoided with a few more updates by our ALAC members to the lists. Lesson learned, I believe, so let's try to move on. I am quite satisfied with the explanations Alan and Robert posted to the list. 3. Keep in mind that the NomComm is *not* a constituency-based organization. Once you are appointed, you are asked to think independently. You are not there to do the bidding of the people who appointed you. Ross will required to think about what's in the best interest of ICANN as a whole, not the ALAC or the registrars. Because of the NomComm confidentiality issues, Ross can receive information, but not share information it. We should invite him to consult with us and hear what we, the North American RALO, believe makes a good Board member, GNSO or ccNSO Councilor, and ALAC rep. I'll make sure to invite him to some of our meetings throughout the year. 4. Let's stop cross-posting. If you think you have a point that needs to be made to everyone in the ALAC, make it on the ALAC general list (ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org). Leave issues related to the North American RALO on this list (NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org). 5. Danny, I have used my position as Interim Chair and list admin to turn your NA-Discuss moderation bit to "on." Please try to keep the conversation on the issues. Bret
Danny I have been out for personal reasons for the past 3 weeks, but am now back and catching back up. I do not understand your complaint about "removing candidates from the election roster" The RALOs were consulted for names. The ALAC did not bind itself to choose ONLY from those names or from ALL the names submitted by the RALO ... that was the role of the regional ALAC members - each region's ALAC MEMBERS submitted names to the ALAC, and THOSE names submitted by them constituted the "electoral roster". (Some took the RALO names, some took RALO names and other suggestions, some took some of the RALO names, left out some and added other suggestions.) All perfectly legal. RALOs are newly formed and we are working to adjust the ALAC processes to include RALO input. However I have seen a lot that some RALOs (not necessarily NARALO, so don't get in a snit) are VERY active when it comes to ALAC procedures, but NOT AT ALL ACTIVE when it comes to the REASON we are here in the first place - ICANN POLICY. But as I keep saying ( but people seem not to understand or read my emails?) is that RALOs have things to do, ALAC has things to do, and they are not the same, and the RALOs are not to take over ALAC's role, nor is ALAC to take the RALOs role. Everyone has responsibilities, and it would work so much better if we agreed on those responsibilities and then did the job rather than insulting and abusing people who were actually doing what they were mandated to do! The term "electoral roster" is also kind of weird to me, as voting isn't mandated, it is often done in ALAC when we fail to reach consensus, or sometimes for other reasons. ALAC voted, cause we have a voting tool and as has happened in the past - we've done consensus, we've done voting. So - if you disagree with Robert - if NARALO has a process for recall, you can engage it. You can also request a change in the NARALO rules (but I would not at all recommend taking the LACRALO ones in toto as they are highly restrictive, and I think would dissuade a lot of good people from running for the position), you can get your reps to suggest a change in the ALAC rules... there are many things you can do without insulting staff, ALAC, our Board Liaison, and the nominees to the NomCom, who I am sure are all good and intelligent people who will do well. If not, we pick differently next year! I would like to suggest that we all move on to more substantive issues - lots of things need to be done for LA which is almost upon us. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:58 To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments Wendy, As Robert on the NCUC list has revealed that you were one of the parties consulted in a process that led to the removal of a candidate from the voting roster, I can understand why you might wish to bury the issue. Sorry, but electoral fraud, an illegal interference with the process of an election, is a serious matter that can't just be swept under the carpet like it never happened. Removing a candidate from the roster for no legitimate reason is illegal interference. It should not be condoned on the pretext of needing to move on. regards, Danny --- Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Danny,
As you have always been one of the strongest voices in counseling us to focus on policy rather than infighting, I hope you will also help us to leave behind personal attacks and work with us to make the ALAC more responsive to the at-large community. With work, I hope we can minimize such feelings of miscommunication in the future.
Thanks, --Wendy
Danny Younger wrote:
Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis."
These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster.
I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership.
Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged.
We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter.
____________________________________________________________________________ ________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
------ 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/ ------
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658 ------ 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: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 21:46 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.13.35/1039 - Release Date: 9/29/2007 21:46
I do not really want to continue flogging this dead horse as I've made my opinions abundantly clear that I, personally, do not agree with the process that was followed and I think that a review is in order. Having said that, though, I am still not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I do not think that Robert or Beau or anybody should be asked to step down nor should they be set up for personal attacks such as this. I think that mistakes were made but lets not go into the deep end with this. Having been on the receiving end of a tirade or two, I can tell you how demoralizing it is. I don't think that anybody acted purposefully "evil". Lets try to keep this constructive and, if anything, propose changes to the system (if possible or if desired), K? Darlene ________________________________ From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Sat 9/29/2007 10:46 AM To: shahshah@irnic.ir; Izumi AIZU Cc: Thompson, Darlene; At-Large Worldwide; Danny Younger; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Results of the Voting for ALAC NominatingCommittee 2008 Appointments Robert Guerra on the NARALO discussion list has revealed that "Consultations were done with key people active on the NA list as well as those in ICANN. Consultations were done privately on a one-to-one basis." These consultations with "those in ICANN" resulted in a duly nominated and confirmed candidate being removed from the voting roster. I find it highly disturbing that elected members of the NARALO feel at liberty to consult with "those in ICANN" without engaging in any consultation with those in the NARALO membership. Who are "those in ICANN" that were consulted? Are ICANN Board members or ICANN Staff complicit in a process to rig the ALAC elections? Or is Robert referring to others? It is his wish that those consultations remain privileged. We deserve a full investigation into this matter. I remain of the view that a legitimate candidate was treatly unfairly and that at the very least the Ombudsman should be called in to review this matter. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
participants (9)
-
Bret Fausett -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jean Armour Polly -
Ross Rader -
Thompson, Darlene -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer