[lac-discuss-en] REMINDER: Motion of no confidence- Comments received until October 8th

Tue Oct 6 23:37:13 UTC 2015

Dear Vanda:
Its not just that a mistake was made.  What is more troubling is this bald
attempt to outlaw thousands of years of mathematical genius, beginning with
the Arabs.

The 100% vote is spread across all countries with ALS.  There are 20
countries with ALS.  Each country is allotted 5% of the vote, that is 100%
divided by 20.

The rule mimics the 'one country, one vote' of the UNGA. And it makes every
country, from Brazil to Jamaica, of equal stature in the LACRALO GA on a
vote.

Every ALS in every country has the same portion of the vote allotted to
their country of domicile.

This makes every ALS a protected class in every country; they can vote
their share of their country's vote independent of all others in their own
country.

Let's take the case of Brazil.  Each of its 4 ALS is allotted and exercise
1.25% of the 5% vote allotted to Brazil. You would have to persuade 3 other
ALS leaders to vote YOUR conscience to commit all of that 5% to any one
candidate. That is, convince Aislan Vargas, Aylne Andrade and Silvia
Herlein Leite to vote as you would vote. See it here:
http://bit.ly/lacralo-dashboard

I suspect any Brazilian ALS would be just as zealous of their share of the
Brazil country vote as the UWI is of our share of the Jamaica country vote.

Here's another thing, its significance tend to miss some of our members.
Each ALS is given its own credentials which is used to track the vote and
its origination to an IP address. We don't have a roll call online. And
proxy voting is not allowed for online votes.  That is because by virtue of
issuing credentials without a bounce, ALL ALS are deemed present for an
online vote.

The total vote for any candidate in any election is the SUM - meaning
adding fraction+fraction+fraction - of each fraction of the country vote
allotted each ALS that voted for that candidate.

The fraction is already expressed in percentage. So the majority - 50% +1%
- is the threshold for winning.

This is really not rocket science and nothing any of us should have to
explain. Or worse, be asked to defend the math! Unless, of course there are
other motives at play.

I explained the math to my 3 year old grand daughter and she gets it. And,
she was annoyed at the time on account my wi-fi was not working properly.

This simple fact has frustrated attempts to capture the LACRALO vote before
now. We have even seen a barefaced proposal to remove the weighted vote in
LACRALO voting mechanisms.

We shall never allow that to go unchallenged.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda at uol.com.br> wrote:

> Reading Dev’s comment and the motion itself, the last has an incorrect
> state about the approval calculation. My suggestion is to correct
> it,considering Dev is right, before ir proceed to be voted to avoid further
> problems.
>  Best to all
> Vanda Scartezini
> Polo Consultores Associados
> Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
> 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
> Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
> Sorry for any typos.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/5/15, 22:17, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <
> lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of
> devtee at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the reminder Silvia, I've posted this comment on the wiki page.
> >
> >"The proposals by Humberto and Alberto in adding multiple motions for
> >votes is calculated to frustrate the intent of the motion of no
> >confidence and underscores the lack of accountability in the LACRALO
> >leadership and the lack of redress in ICANN At-Large when the LACRALO
> >leadership acts in a corrupt manner.
> >
> >There has been mention of extra-ordinary or special motions in LACRALO
> >and this is false.
> >
> >There are only two types of motions in LACRALO : procedural and
> non-procedural.
> >
> >The motion of no confidence as raised by Carlton and seconded by
> >others is a procedural one.
> >
> >It was filed before the 2nd election (of an LACRALO ALAC
> >representative for 2015-2017) called by the LACRALO chair and
> >secretariat and should have been heard immediately rather than the
> >LACRALO chair and secretariat ignoring the motion to proceed with the
> >2nd election.
> >
> >As it was a procedural motion, a simple majority of the weighted vote
> >(greater than 50%) of the ALSes present and voting is needed for the
> >motion to pass, as per Rule 12.2.
> >
> >As such, the motion of no confidence in the LACRALO leadership as
> >filed by Carlton
> >(
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/013432.html
> )
> >is the only motion that needs to be heard and voted on. "
> >
> >Kind Regards,
> >
> >Dev Anand Teelucksingh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Silvia Vivanco
> ><silvia.vivanco at icann.org> wrote:
> >> Dear LACRALO members,
> >>
> >> This is reminder to provide comments on the LACRALO's Secretariat
> proposed
> >> way  forward regarding the Motion of No confidence.
> >>
> >> The Secretariat has requested comment to be posted until October 08,
> 2015.
> >>
> >> SEE wiki :
> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56137995
> >>
> >> Next steps:
> >>
> >> "Resolved:
> >>
> >> The General Assembly shall demonstrate its lack of confidence in LACRALO
> >> leadership and shall vote on this motion. This motion shall be
> considered
> >> approved by the vote of a two-thirds majority of the ALSes'
> representatives
> >> present and voting."
> >> The  discussion will be opened until 8 October 2015, 23:00".
> >>
> >> Thank you!
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >>
> >> Silvia
> >>
> >>
> >> Silvia Vivanco
> >> Manager, At Large Regional Affairs
> >> ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> >> www.icann.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
> >> Humberto Carrasco
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:27 PM
> >> To: lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> Subject: [lac-discuss-en] Links related motion of no confidence
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> We uploaded all the documents in the following links:
> >>
> >> Motion of no confidence and others:
> >>
> >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56137985
> >>
> >> Next steps:
> >>
> >> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=56137995
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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 mailing list
> >> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> >>
> >_______________________________________________
> >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 mailing list
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20151006/ceee0799/attachment-0001.html>