[lac-discuss-en] FW: Follow-up: ALAC Voting Delegates to the NomCom for 2013 - MESSAGE TO SPANISH TRANSLATION

[staff at atlarge.icann.org]

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: FW: Follow-up: ALAC Voting Delegates to the NomCom for 2013 - MESSAGE TO SPANISH TRANSLATION 
 From: staff at atlarge.icann.org

 MESSAGE IN SPANISH TRANSLATION BELOW 


 Dear all, 


 As everyone knows, we have faced a situation unprecedented in the 
 recent vote to elect voting delegates to the NomCom for 
 2013. 


 Our Bylaws incorporate rules for Candidate Election. These 
 rules are valid for the election of all officers of the ALAC, 
 including delegates to the NomCom. 
 The Rule 10.4 specifies that a "tie vote instantneo" serusado 
 as the voting system to determine the winner. 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting 


 Rule 10.05 specifies that voters rank * all * 
 candidates in order of preference.


 This means that the type of voting instantneo tiebreaker is required 
 of "preference" total vote. 
 It only allows the selection of a candidate. 


 Unfortunately, the voting system was programmed to Bigpulse 
 allow the choice of only one candidate and some voters aslo 
 did. 


 As a result, the vote violated Rule 10.5 and is therefore null and void. 


 Since we have to choose someone as soon as possible, I 
 directed the staff to begin a new vote, which is attached 
 strictly to our Statutes. As a result, the vote requerirque 
 * All * candidates are put in order, and that the feedback system 
 BigPulse be programmed not to accept partial votes. 


 Also notice that there is no option "none of the above" as this 
 not required by our bylaws. 


 So, the only options that members of the ALAC They will have to vote 
 Sern: 


 Candidate A - 1 
 Candidate B - 2 


 or


 Candidate A - 2 
 Candidate B - 1 


 or 


 Refrains - 1 


 Sque there are other options that may be possible with "partial preference 
 instantneo tiebreaker vote "but our laws do not. 


 If you have questions, estarencantado to answer. A lesson learned 
 is that we need to ensure our re-writing the rules of ALAC 
 Procedures is quite clear about how the votes are counted and that 
 type of voting system is used. 


 Again, my apologies for the confusion this has caused. 


 Olivier MJ Crpin-Leblond 
 ALAC Chair 


 ----- Original Message ----- 
 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto: ocl at gih.com] 
 Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:30 a.m. 
 To: 'Internal ALAC List'; ALAC Working List 
 Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff 
 Subject: Follow-up: ALAC Voting Delegates to the NomCom for 2013 


 Dear all,


 as you all know, We have been faced With An unprecedented situation in the 
 recent vote to select voting Delegates to the NomCom for 2013. 


 Our Bylaws Incorporate rules for the Candidate Elections. These rules are 
 valid for the election of all officers ALAC, Including Delegates to the 
 NomCom. 
 Rule 04.10 specifies That "instant-runoff" voting is to be used as the voting 
 system to determine the winner. 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting 


 That Rule 10.5 specifies voters rank * all * candidates in order of 
 preference. 


 This Means That the type of instant-runoff voting is required "full 
 preference "voting. 
 It does not allow for the selection of only one candidate. 


 Unfortunately, the system was programmed Bigpulse to allow for the selection 
 of only one candidate, and some voters did so. 


 As a result, the vote broke rule 10.5 and is THEREFORE null and void. 


 Because we need to select someone as Quickly as possible, I have Instructed 
 staff to start a new vote Which Will follow closely our Bylaws.As a result, 
 The vote will ask for * all * candidates to be Placed in order, and the 
 BigPulse system will be programmed to refuse partial votes. 
 You will Also note That there is no "none of the above" option since this is 
 not mandated in our bylaws. 


 So the only options Will Have ALAC members to vote will be: 


 Candidate A - 1 
 Candidate B - 2 


 or 


 Candidate A - 2 
 Candidate B - 1 


 or 


 Abstain - 1 


 I know that there are other possible choices That Could be possible with 
 "Partial preference instant-runoff voting" but our Bylaws do NOT allow it. 


 If You have any questions, I would be happy to reply to them. One lesson 
 Learnt Is that we need to make sure our re-write of the ALAC Rules of 
 About Procedures is quite clear how votes are to be Counted and what type of 
 voting system is used. 


 Once again, apologies for the confusion this has Caused. 


 Olivier MJ Crpin-Leblond 
 ALAC Chair 






 _______________________________________________ 



[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/7730b4764f.html
--]]