[lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2

amedinagomez at gmail.com amedinagomez at gmail.com
Wed Aug 5 00:08:49 UTC 2015


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

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

 Leon thank you very much for this successful and substantive intervention 
 The 08/04/2015 18:59, &quot;Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía&quot; <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
 wrote: 


> ====English after Spanish version======
>
>
> Queridos amigos,
>
> Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situación. Como saben, apoyé la
> elección de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se había agotado de
> manera adecuada. Lo sucedido después, es historia.
>
> Atendiendo a la recomendación del Ombudsman, sería deseable llevar a cabo
> el proceso de elección del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que
> pediría al Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso,
> establezcan, claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarán a la
> elección, es decir:
>
> 1. ¿Cuando se abrirá la convocatoria para nominaciones?
> 2. ¿Cuando se cerrará la convocatoria para nominaciones?
> 3. ¿Cuales serán los criterios de elegibilidad?
> 4. ¿Cuál será el período para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos?
> 5. ¿Existirá un debate?
> 6. ¿Cuando se llevará a cabo la votación?
> 7. ¿Si hay una sola nominación se votará igualmente?
> 8. ¿Si hay varias nominaciones, cómo se eliminarán candidatos?
> 9. ¿Habrá una sola vuelta de votación?
> 10. ¿Serán varias hasta que resten únicamente dos candidatos?
> 11. ¿cómo se designará al candidato electo?¿Será por mayoría de las ALS
> que voten? ¿Será por mayoría de las ALS certificadas actualmente? ¿Las
> abstenciones se contarán?
> 12. ¿Es conveniente pensar en un Comité Electoral?
>
> Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reunión de
> Dublin, donde al finalizar deberá iniciar su período quien resulte electo,
> está al vuelta de la esquina.
>
> Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que
> establezcan las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continúen el procedimiento
> de reposición de elección.
>
> =====English version============
>
> Dear friends,
>
> I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I
> supported the election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had
> been exhausted properly. What happened after, is history.
>
> Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to
> conduct the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would
> ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that they establish the rules
> that will run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a
> priori. For example, the following questions come to my mind:
>
> 1. When will the call for nominations begin?
> 2. When will the call for nominations close?
> 3. What are the eligibility criteria?
> 4. What will be the time to listen to the candidates’ SOIs?
> 5. Will there be a debate?
> 6.When will the vote take place?
> 7. If there is only one nomination will there still be a vote?
> 8. If there are multiple nominations, how will candidates be shortlisted?
> 9. Will there be a single round of voting?
> 10. Will there be several voting round until there are only two candidates
> left?
> 11. How will the winning candidate be determined? Will it be determined by
> majority of votes from those ALSs voting? Will it be determined by majority
> of votes of all certified ALSs? Will abstentions count?
> 12. Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee?
>
> We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin,
> where the elected candidate will begin his/her term, is around the corner.
>
> I urge our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call
> for nominations and continue to carry the voting process.
>
> Saludos, Best regards
>
>
>
> León
>
> El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia at gmail.com> escribió:
>
> Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y  adecuadas.
>
>
> Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situación presente y buscan
> resolver a futuro para que no ocurra otra vez el problema.
>
> 1.  La de promover  el cambio de la regla actual a una regla clara, que
> elimine la complicación que se generó en esta oportunidad :
>
>  Por ejemplo si hay un solo candidato y dentro del plazo establecido no se
> presentó otro, ni hubo objeciones: ese que da. Sin necesidad de encuesta.
>
> Personalmente me parece la solución más clara y sencilla.
>
> 2. Dado el caso de que ya ocurrió: se hizo la encuesta y dio el resultado
> para resolver este caso que ya está dada:  hacer nueva elección.
>
> Parece razonable para salir del paso ahora y poder avanzar en otros temas
> de gran importancia.
>
> Saludos a todos
>
>
>
> 2015-08-04 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 retroalimentación razonable de todos los
>> miembros de la
>>  Opinión del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones
>> finales
>> das
>>   &quot;En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crítica de la
>>  decisión de celebrar una encuesta, con un número teniendo en cuenta que
>> la lanza Hinds
>>  debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el único candidato, sin
>>  la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, sería útil tener
>> un
>>  opinión de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever
>>  esto específicamente. Pero en una situación en la que ha habido un voto
>>  en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo sería volver a ejecutar la
>> elección,
>>  y esa es mi recomendación &quot;.
>>
>>
>>  Atentamente
>>
>>
>>  Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>  +506 8837 7176
>>  Skype: carlos.raulg
>>  El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribió:
>>
>>
>> > 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
>>  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/ac1f42aab8.html
--]]




More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list