right...we don't have time to be exhausting ourselves on process when we should be spending our energy advocating for users...why would we waste time and hours convening them to review the backgrounds of the candidates if we are then going to disregard their choices? Surely they had to take things like geographic representation and gender into account let's move on -----Original Message-----

From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> Sent: Nov 2, 2010 12:39 PM To: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [NA-Discuss] FW: Fwd: ALAC BoD Candidates

Hi all,

Actually, Garth Bruen did reply and stated that although he was on the slate, too, he would oppose this.

Why aren't we campaigning for Garth? He is excellent, too.

This is why I *personally* think that we should allow the process to continue and assume that the BCEC did its job. Elsewise, it comes down to personalities and who we all like. I like Avri very much and think she would do an excellent job but there were other people on the slate that I thought just as qualified.

This is just my opinion but it is also why I would be against this. I am not going to go second guessing the very qualified people on the BCEC.

D

Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 (867) 975-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org] Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 5:58 PM To: Eduardo Diaz Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: ALAC BoD Candidates

On 1 November 2010 17:05, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I have only received emails supporting Avry. I have not seen the opposing ones.

Evan: Can you generalize the reasons why some are against it?

Some are opposed to a specific petition (for Avri).

Others are against having a petition at all (ie, the BCEC did its job and we trust its people that did what they were asked to do). The implication is that, since the BCEC _could_ have put more than three candidates on the ballot, it must have had sufficient reason to limit the final cut to the three that it did.

That's as much of a generalization as I feel comfortable doing.

As for the reasons why these comments were made privately, I can only speculate that it's because we're talking about people rather than policies ... and some NARALO members commenting may believe that they could be treated differently by their peers for speaking their opinions honestly. It's not for me to judge if those beliefs are warranted.

Those people have, for certain, read the calls here for open debate. It is their call how they choose to proceed. I am simply noting the fact that, unusually for NARALO, we have a significant divide.

I myself am genuinely undecided. I like Avri personally and professionally, I work with her on committees and greatly appreciate what she brings to end-user advocacy. I also trust the judgments of the people on the BCEC, including NARALO's two representatives. I know they had a very difficult task, and I am confident that a suitable advocate for Internet end-users can be elected from amongst the three people that the BCEC *did* submit. At this point I am more concerned about the campaign becoming a Jerry Springer episode on a global stage than I am about sending an unqualified person to the position.

Right now the only thing of which I am certain is that I am thoroughly exhausted by this whole process, long before the vote takes place.

- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------