[lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2

[Chris LaHatte]

Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I receive a complaint of unfairness.

The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the period 2015 – 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no other nominations. The timetable would have included an election period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS supported the sole nomination.

On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small software development company, and is the president of a local business support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict. He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election process rather than a poll subsequently held.

The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that the results meant that there had to be a new election.

I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries.

It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly canvass those issues.


In general, when there is an election process which has been challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the second process fully aware of the issues.

In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that is my recommendation.

I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to contact me, in confidence if necessary.



Chris LaHatte
Ombudsman
Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman


Confidentiality
All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. 
The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the 
privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint 
being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries 
about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a 
complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The 
Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff 
and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a 
complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such 
information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20150803/47048cf8/smime.p7s>