Beau, I think that you did misinterpret. And the question did not come from any bias. Wendy got off easier this time because I subjected her to it last year, and we have discussed several issues one-on-one, so I had less need with her. I specifically made reference to "formal" ALAC activities, and perhaps even to teleconferences (which you understood based on the your reply). Staff had distributed a spreadsheet where your satisfaction of the ALAC performance rules was flagged as "Not Achieved" (a fate I narrowly missed over that same 6-month period by just one meeting). I have already gone on record a few times as saying we needed to revise those rules to track SUBSTANTIVE contributions and not mere attendance. In our current rules, if someone had missed *one* ALS vote, they would have failed in that category! And if they attend everything and never say or do anything they are labelled superb. I did not say that the NARALO was calling for your resignation - I said I had seen one post on the mailing list saying that - nothing more. And I led off the question saying that you had made substantive contributions in various areas (which not unreasonably were also aligned with your real-life work activities). The question was quite straight. You did not manage to make a fair percentage of the ALAC teleconferences in the last while, and I was asking why a substantially larger number of events would not be a problem in the future. Although I will no doubt get into trouble for trying to paraphrase you, my take on your answer was that you missed some meetings because they were often a waste of time. And I agreed. I am a bit troubled that you have not been more active in trying to fix that problem instead of walking away from it, but that is just my personal feeling. I normally treat volunteers very respectfully and with sensitivity. In this case, you are putting your name up for an important position within the ALAC world, and I do not think it appropriate to side-step issues because they are awkward to bring up. Alan At 05/09/2008 02:59 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:

Dear NA:

This morning in the board liaison candidacy discussion, Alan Greenberg asked me a question that went something like, "considering the NA region is calling for your resignation because you don't have time for your ALAC duties as they currently stand, why should we vote for you for board liaison?"

Putting aside the board liaison candidacy thing for a moment, I need to get clear on something.

If I misinterpreted the question (I don't think I did), feel free to ignore this note. If Alan's question comes from some sort of bias for Wendy's candidacy versus mine, well hey, that's OK, I'm a big boy and I don't really see that as a problem. The ALAC will vote for whom it votes.

But if the NA-RALO is indeed asking for my resignation, I would have appreciated the opportunity to address it in another forum beforehand, or would have appreciated hearing it directly from the elected chair of the NA-RALO rather than from a nomcom appointee. Or, for that matter, I would have appreciated hearing about it from the chair of the ALAC. If it's indeed the case, you'll have my resignation in 24 hours -- (914) 378-2018 until 5:30 EST. It would be great to know before the weekend starts, so I can devote time I would have spent on ICANN matters to other things.

Some final advice: If you're looking to attract good volunteers to work in this community, rethink your processes.

Regards,

Beau Brendler

**************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED

**************************************************************************** ********

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...

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