[lac-discuss-en] RES: Re: Final Consideration - Member of ALAC Election (Part 2)

[Carlton Samuels]

Hi Vanda:
I had another look at Jose's text after I read your response.  Because like
you, I believe that using national laws to determine LACRALO's business
would be very problematic.  This is why we have and need the RoP as guide.

This aside, I now believe Jose's declaration entirely rational.  It is also
defensible.

What distracts is that in his zeal to be thorough, Jose went into overdrive
and 'over think', quoting this national law and that.  Principles are the
driving factors here.

The declaration is supportable if you consider the practical understanding
of being 'representative' of end users in a certain physical space and how
that connects to where you live day-to-day.

If one cannot interact readily with constituents in all kinds of ways
day-to-day, you can hardly be said to be 'representing' them. Here I am
making specific reference to the lectures on the meaning of democracy and
representation of end users on this list, something I know is hardly
understood, even by the lecturers.

It is a similar situation with language that some of our Caribbean
colleagues in Barbados has maintained for years.  I confess I was
uncomfortable with this view but I have now come to agree it is entirely
practical.

The representative's tenure is 2 years from October 2012; ending latest
December 2014.

Humberto is admitted and pursuing a full time face-to-face doctoral degree
that will take him beyond December 2014 to acquire.

Jose has pointed out Humberto is required by his university rules  to be
resident in Scotland for the duration of his study.

As evidence by his acceptance for study, Humberto has agreed to this
restriction.

Jose has interpreted 'resident' in context to mean 'live day-to-day'.

So if you follow Jose's reasoning, Humberto now lives day-to-day in
Scotland. And for the period in which he would serve if he's elected, he
would be living day-to-day in Scotland.

Humberto has not disavowed the meaning of or intent of his university
requirement for him to be  'resident' in Scotland for duration.

Nor has he denied living now day-to-day  in Scotland.

What Humberto has done is to refute Jose's interpretation of the ordinary
meaning of the word 'resident' and what it means to be 'representative' of
end users in a defined geographic space.

Reasonable people can disagree.  Which is why LACRALO has a mechanism to
challenge these disagreements.

Warmest regards,
- Carlton


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM, <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:

>
> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
>
>  Subject: RES: Re: Final Consideration - Member of ALAC Election (Part 2)
>  From: vanda at uol.com.br
>
>  Well, I believe can not be driven by LACRALO Chilean law or other national
>  Laws! If the person has citizenship and is temporarily leaving in another
>  country I see no reason to not allow the person to Participate.
>  Even regarding regional balance in ICANN, citizenship is the MOST
>  Combined With The critical issue to get another That demand &quot;
>  citizenship &quot;Must the person in another country comprove leaving for
> more
>  than 5 years!
>  So people, lets be reasonable. If we will depend on Each country law, to
>  Any decision, we will end With Each one voting based on ITS own laws. It
>  from my view is crazy.
>  Vanda
>
>
>