[lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2

Wed Aug 5 00:22:50 UTC 2015

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

 Subject: Re: Rule 11.2 
 From: carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com

 Felipe totally agree with you. I think devemos very strict criteria rn in order not to interpret anything and has no doubts as to why so surely also be determined within these eligibility criteria, which will be the parameters of old and participation of the candidate. And what is the degree of knowledge of the region and the issues that ALAC has in agenda. 

 0.02 

<div> -------- Original Message -------- </div><div> From: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx></div><div> Date: 4/8/2015 8:59 PM (GMT-03: 00) </div><div> To: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia at gmail.com></div><div> Cc: &quot; <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org> &quot; <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org></div><div> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2 </div><div>
</div>
 ==== ====== Inglés after Spanish 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 then is history. 

 Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman would be desirable to conduct the election process to LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the President and Secretary of LACRALO is that, in any event, to establish, clearly and a priori, the rules that apply to the election, ie: 

 1. When a call for nominations will open? 
 2. When the call for nominations will be closed? 
 3. What are the eligibility criteria? 
 4. What will be the time to listen to the SOI candidates? 
 5. Will there be a debate? 
 6. When will the vote take place? 
 7. If there is only one nomination was also vote? 
 8. If there are multiple nominations, candidates will be eliminated? 
 9. Will there be a single round of voting? 
 10.¿Will be until several subtract only two candidates? 
 11. How the elected candidate will be appointed? Is it because most ALS vote? Is it because most currently certified ALS? Do abstentions are counted? 
 12. It is convenient to think of an Election Committee? 

 We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin, where he will begin his term at the end whoever is elected, is to turn the corner. 

 I make an urgent call to our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call and continue the reset procedure of choice. 

 Inglés version ============ ===== 

 Dear friends, 

 I deeply regret That we are living esta situation. As you know, I supported the election of Lance Hinds, Considering That HAD Been exhausted the process 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 there will still be a vote? 
 8. If there are multiple nominations, how candidates will 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 ALS Those voting? Will it be Determined by majority of votes of all certified ALS? 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 urged our President and Secretary to Establish the rules, open the call for nominations and continue to carry the voting process. 

 Greetings, Best regards 

 Lion 

> El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia at gmail.com> escribiÃ³:
>
> Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y  adecuadas.
>
> Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situaciÃ³n 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 complicaciÃ³n que se generÃ³ en esta oportunidad :
>
>  Por ejemplo si hay un solo candidato y dentro del plazo establecido no se presentÃ³ otro, ni hubo objeciones: ese que da. Sin necesidad de encuesta.
>
> Personalmente me parece la soluciÃ³n mÃ¡s clara y sencilla.
>
> 2. Dado el caso de que ya ocurriÃ³: se hizo la encuesta y dio el resultado para resolver este caso que ya estÃ¡ dada:  hacer nueva elecciÃ³n.
>
> 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 <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>>:
>
> [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
>
>  Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2
>  De: crg at isoc-cr.org <mailto: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 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176>
>  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/ <https://omblog.icann.org/>
> > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman <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 <mailto:lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en>
>  lac-discuss-en lista de correo
>  lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>  https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en>
>
>
>

[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/98ac3f4146.html
--]]