Re: [alac] Revision of internal positions

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't see any need for (or benefit to) uniformity of opinion among 
the leadership.  I'd rather have three people committed to helping us 
express the views of the public in the ICANN process, than three 
people who share the same opinion about how best to do that.

Maybe someone else can help me to understand why it is important to 
present a unified public face, since this is clearly an important 
value to some.  I see us as more akin to a congress, where there are 
often strong differences of opinion and it's important for leaders to 
present the positions of all parties to the debate.

I preferred Vittorio's original proposal.
--Wendy

At 10:54 AM 2/22/2006, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Il giorno mar, 21/02/2006 alle 00.36 +0330, shahshah@xxxxxxxx ha
> scritto:
> > Vittorio,
> > Assuming this [Chair+2ViceChairs] formula is now accepted(it wasn't my
> > favorite, but I can live with it), let us not risk possible lack of public
> > harmony by electing independent candidates to these positions. After all,
> > the Chair should still be the public face of the Committee and you would
> > not want public quarrels between the Chair and one of the Vice Chairs. I
> > propose we adopt one of the following methods:
> > Method 1. We first choose a Chair. The the Chair will nominate one or more
> > candidates he/she has come to an understanding with for each Vice Chair
> > position. The Committee then votes for the Vice Chairs.
> > Method 2. You ask for nominations for 3-member teams(with specified
> > positions). Then the Committee members vote for the team they prefer. It
> > should be understood that the team members have reached an understanding
> > among themselves on how they're going to work together.
> > I'm personally inclined toward Method 1, but I'd like to hear 
> other opinions.
>
> I did not want to make this too complex, and I would be afraid of method
> 2, which, requiring people to agree on groups of candidates, could
> effectively give way to a "majority" and "minority" in the Committee. In
> this case I would rather prefer to have people of different opinion in
> the various positions, but that's a personal preference.
> In any case, perhaps it's reasonable to first appoint the Chair and then
> run a second separate process for the vice Chairs, according to the
> result. Do other people have preferences on this matter?
> --
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/