[lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2

Tue Aug 4 16:09:01 UTC 2015

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

 Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 
 From: aidanoblia at gmail.com

 If I interpret, understand that its two clear and appropriate proposals. 

 I agree with them because they solve this situation and seek 
 looking to solve again the problem does not occur. 

 1. promote the change of the current rule to a clear rule, 
 removes the complication that was generated in this opportunity: 

 For example if there is a single candidate and within the prescribed period not 
 He presented another, nor were objections: that it gives. Without survey. 

 Personally I think the clearest and simplest solution. 

 2. Since the event that already occurred: the survey was done and gave the result 
 to solve this case already given: making new election. 

 It seems reasonable to get by now to move forward on other issues 
 of great importance.

 Greetings to all 

 08/04/2015 11:06 GMT-03: 00 <crg at isoc-cr.org> : 
 > 
> [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
>
>  Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2
>  De: crg at isoc-cr.org
>
>  Queridos miembros de LACRALO,
>
>
>  Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentaciÃ³n razonable de todos los
> miembros de la
>  OpiniÃ³n del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales
> das
>   &quot;En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crÃtica de la
>  decisiÃ³n de celebrar una encuesta, con un nÃºmero teniendo en cuenta que
> la lanza Hinds
>  debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el Ãºnico candidato, sin
>  la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, serÃa Ãºtil tener un
>  opiniÃ³n de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever
>  esto especÃficamente. Pero en una situaciÃ³n en la que ha habido un voto
>  en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo serÃa volver a ejecutar la
> elecciÃ³n,
>  y esa es mi recomendaciÃ³n &quot;.
>
>
>  Atentamente
>
>
>  Carlos RaÃºl GutiÃ©rrez
>  +506 8837 7176
>  Skype: carlos.raulg
>  El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribiÃ³:
>
>
> > 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 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ 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
>  lac-discuss-en lista de correo
>  lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>  https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
>
>

[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/88d7591a0b.html
--]]