I've been away for the last few days and am only now catching up on  
this list's email...

It seems some questions have been raised as to the process by which  
the NA ALAC , and in fact ALAC as a whole selected the nomcom  
candidate from the NA region.

First,let me describe the process -

The NA ALAC reps held  two teleconferences where we discussed the  
Nomcom candidates. Beau, Alan and I spent considerable time  
discussing the i\, the candidates and additional persons we might  
want to consider

The candidate pool came from names proposed on the NA list, as well  
as persons suggested by the NA Regional reps. The breakdown was thus  
- one person proposed from the NA list, and 5 persons suggested from  
the ALAC reps. Of the 6 persons, one candidate was removed as they  
had been elected board liason. the rest were contacted to confirm  
that indeed they would be willing and able to serve the term. Three  
confirmed there were interested, willing and able to represent ALAC  
on nomcom. two top candidates were identified and a discussion took  
place to see if a consensus candidate could be chosen. This was not  
the case, as such the two were submitted to the ALAC for them to vote  
on.

Key facts:

- the two proposed candidates both were supported by more then one  
ALAC rep
- The consensus view that developed was that a candidate should be  
well familiar with icann and/or able to learn about  it's politics  
and issues, and ability to represent the user voice/view were key  
factors needed in a candidate.


My personal choice was Ross, as i'm quite familiar with his work with  
the user community in Canada and his involvement in CIRA. It is his  
proven track record to be able to represent users on the CIRA board  
as well as his support for NCUC and ALAC view that led to me voting  
for him. In summary, I voted based on  a track record in engaging  
users and the user community (in canada) as well as a very good  
understand of ICANN, it's politics and nomcom.

Using the recently approved voting rules adopted by the ALAC,   
candidates proposed from the regions where a consensus was not  
possible were considered by the ALAC. A one week open voting & period  
was opened  - where opinions were expressed by ALAC members on  
candidates, and voting took place.Voting closed a particular day,  
after which the results were announced.

The existing icann bylaws state that ALAC should appoint candidates -  
and that was done. Though not specifically mentioned , consulation  
also tool place - and considerable time, and effort was taken to  
review candidates and elect one that fit the criteria developed.

Ross, in my opinion - despite what some critics might say - has the  
knowledge and ability, integrity and ability  to represent ALAC and  
users interests well  on the nomcom. I believe that he will serve  
alac well  .

Secondly, let me say that constant critiquing ALAC reps is not  
constructive at all. Personally, I have tried to bring values of  
consultation and dialogue between those in the NA ALS, ALAC members  
and other key constituencies such as NCUC, SSAC and many others . I  
see there is great value in  collaboration - one that can serve to  
bring a stronger voice to users and civil society inside the complex  
and very political structure that is ICANN.



In summary -  Key appointments and nominations need to be strategic  
and constructive. I believe that the two candidates proposed were  
good, and that the better qualified and most knowledgeable person who  
indeed will be able to serve all users from the NA region has been  
selected. Can we do things better in the future - indeed we can.  
let's learn from this experience and build a better process for the  
08/09 nomcom selection process

regards

Robert