[lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2

[Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez]

Dear LACRALO members,

Hope we can have a reasonable feedback from all members on the 
Ombudsman’s review, particularly his final recommendations

  “ 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.”

Best regards

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
On 3 Aug 2015, at 15:55, Chris LaHatte wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en