[lac-discuss-en] Voting Candidate NomCom - Staff Appreciation - Proposal

[carlosaguirre62]

Dear all, 
Allow me make a comment about transparency, saying : method propose by Jose is absolutely transparent because show every support recibed by each candidate on the wiki, without a necesity to do an useless election on this particular situation. 
Also, consensus need a previous discussion,  in this  case result impossible , just because time expired on june 25 , and we cant conduct an effective exchange of ideas on the 2 days extension. 
I personally cant find what is the argument of Sergio statement on this issue. 

My two cents. 

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre. 




Enviado desde Samsung tabletalberto at soto.net.ar escribió:
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

Subject: Re: Voting Candidate NomCom - Staff Appreciation - Proposal 
From: alberto at soto.net.ar

Dear, for erroneous synchronization problem of my email accounts, I thought it was defined and vote just got the credentials. 
This does not mean that my opinion. 
I agree with Jose, and I do not see lack of transparency in this process, as in any other process that was responsible. 
I think we should take care of our opinions, and think hard before publicly offend someone. 
Best Regards 


Alberto Soto 
Sent from my BlackBerry from Claro Argentina


----- Original Message ----- 
From: JosFrancisco Arce <josefranciscoarce at gmail.com>
Sender: lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
Date: Wed, June 27, 2013 11:31:18 
To: President Internaut <presidencia at internauta.org.ar>
Cc: At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org> , LACRALO Spanish <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org> , Sylvia @ prontocl <sylvia at prontocl.com.br>
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Candidate Voting NomCom - Appreciation 
staff - Proposal 


Dear Sergio, 


I thank you for your kind email. But I want to tell you I feel certain 
contradictions in your written lines. But I want to clarify something 
very important and I have to aclarrtelo strange since you're a person 
with experience in the region, and I mentioned in my previous mail. 


* Goes back *: In the interest of transparency you request by email, is that 
I tell you that I can not let it continue what you and 3 people call ms and 
go ahead with that, when other ESTN not agree.


As you know, the region is the one to make the decisions, not me, not 
Secretary, not you, and the region must operate by consensus, in case 
is not (consensus is not what you and several people think ms) 
Voting should go Democratic is the way that helps solve the 
lack of consensus. 


Particularly you're asking the region follow your point of view, and 
you had the support of several people, but not all. And is more, only 
propusiste your own point of view, without providing alternatives or think 
those who disagreed; alternatives that I try to give 
reconciling all interests, which is my function. 


My proposal does not violate any rule set and is not dangerous, only 
reconciles the interests of both parties who are in disagreement. 
REMEMBER:


Some want to meet the deadlines and send the list to ALAC (with my 
proposal hara) and others want to vote for the candidate 
preferential (If all expressed their support in the wiki these candidates is 
the same as going to vote, ALAC could only follow a link to see who 
has more support). Now tel