[lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
vanda at uol.com.br
vanda at uol.com.br
Wed Aug 5 18:49:04 UTC 2015
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: Re: Rule 11.2
From: vanda at uol.com.br
Thank you Leon for bring it to light again. We have the Ombudsman's recommendation. If the Ombudsman Consulted We have to follow His looks reasonable recommendation, but since recommendation is not mandatory, we need a final decision on This issue.
Best regards
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, 1004 cj
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org" On Behalf Of Antonio Gomes
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 21:08
To: Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía
Cc: "lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org"
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Rule 11.2
Leon thank you very much for this successful and substantive intervention
The 08/04/2015 18:59, "Leon Felipe Sanchez Ambía" <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> wrote:
==== ====== 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 it was also vote?
8. If there are multiple nominations, candidates will be eliminated?
9. Will there be a single round of voting?
10. How many will be subtracted until 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
The 08/04/2015, at 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia at gmail.com> wrote:
If I interpret, understand that its two clear and appropriate proposals.
I agree with them because they solve this situation and seek to resolve in the future to again the problem does not occur.
1. promote the change of the current rule to a clear rule that removes the complication that was generated in this opportunity:
For example if there is a single candidate and the deadline did not show other, 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 results 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 -> en) -]]
Subject: Re: Rule 11.2
From: crg at isoc-cr.org
Dear members of LACRALO,
I hope we can have a reasonable feedback from all members
Opinion of the Ombudsman, in particular its final recommendations
you give
"In this case I am aware that is not criticism of the
decision to hold a survey with a number considering that the spear Hinds
It must be selected by virtue of being the only candidate without
the need for a survey. Looking ahead, it would be useful to have a
consensus view on whether the rules should be amended to provide
this specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote
against a candidate, the process would be fair rerun election,
and that's my recommendation. "
Sincerely
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
On August 3, 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
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/a779407c29.html
--]]
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list