[lac-discuss-en] Voting and cancellations

[asoto at ibero-americano.org]

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

 Subject: Re: Voting and cancellations 
 From: asoto at ibero-americano.org

 Carlos, I copy the mail I sent this morning: 


 "Dear, I again explain: to notice that there was a proposal for Jacqueline Morris, and should be considered to have been in time, were consulted Alejandro Pisanty, who agreed to withdraw his motion, support of Jacqueline, and not hold the vote. 


 Here there is no arbitrary decision, it is a rational decision about joining criteria. 


 According to Art. 4 of our Operating Principles and Art. 4.1 of our common LACRALO Rules of Procedures, in order not to lose more time, I decided to cancel the vote. 


 Until that time we agreed Jacqueline Morris, of course because it is their proposal, Alejandro Pisanty, Sergio Salinas Porto, Humberto Carrasco and me.


 Then we inform the list that Alexander had withdrawn its motion, and if there was no opposition within seven days reported, Jacqueline's motion was approved. 


 We can now vote a motion was withdrawn. 


 Want to insist on a vote, the proposal should be voted on is Jacqueline's motion. If you insist on voting on the motion of Alejandro Pisanty, we would be voting on a withdrawal proposal and thus would enter a major policy inconsistency. 


 So we wait seven days provided and informed view all comments generated, and thus end this process. " 






 Cheers 






 Alberto Soto 










 From: lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On behalf of Carlos Vera Quintana 
 Posted on: Friday, August 21, 2015 4:52 pm
 To: Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob at gmail.com>
 CC: LACRALO Spanish <lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
 Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Voting and cancellations 






 The point of order raised by Fatima affects and deals with the current process. It must be resolved immediately. He has received various supports. 






 On the process: to exist and several official pronouncements on the list against the procedure adopted to give effect to the motion of Jacqueline (not the motion itself but by the illegality of the procedure of accepting a motion amending a motion process vote) there is no consensus and Jacqueline's motion is not accepted. That's obvious. 






 I must agree that there is a very poor management: hasty, baseless, arbitrary and illegal. 






 I suggest the outline of a responsible precautionary procedures to care formality and legality of such committee is adopted. 






 There are for this several prestantes experienced lawyers and parliamentarians in the group, which could be very helpful! 






 Cheers 








 Carlos Vera Quintana 


 0988141143 


 Follow mecveraq 




 On 21/08/2015, at 14:03, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob at gmail.com <mailto:hcarrascob at gmail.com> &gt; He wrote: 


 Carlos, 










 Sure to be solved. 






 We'll do it at the end of the 7 days as Alberto said. 






 Cheers 




 Sent from my iPhone 




 On 08/21/2015, at 19:57, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq at gmail.com <mailto:cveraq at gmail.com> &gt; He wrote:


 Dear: This point of order raised by Fatima and has received various supports must be resolved. 






 Cheers 




 Carlos Vera Quintana 


 0988141143 


 Follow mecveraq 




 On 21/08/2015, at 8:53, José Francisco Arce <josefranciscoarce at gmail.com <mailto:josefranciscoarce at gmail.com> &gt; He wrote: 






 SUPPORT THE MOTION OF FATIMA 










 JOSEPH ARCE.- 


















 The August 20, 2015, 23:53, Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero at gmail.com <mailto:fatimacambronero at gmail.com> &gt; He wrote: 


 open and run a voting process, and you can not call consensus. Had qu 
















 - 


 Arce, Jose F. 
 http://lnkd.in/bPdTThz 


 _______________________________________________ 



[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/28a200068a.html
--]]