[lac-discuss-en] The election motion... Has failed to pass.
Humberto Carrasco
hcarrascob at gmail.com
Wed Sep 16 06:45:37 UTC 2015
Dear Jacqueline,
I apologise for not replying before. I have been dealing with other
urgent LACRALO issues as well.
However, I will answer about this issue during the day.
Regards
El 16/09/2015 a las 4:24, Jacqueline Morris escribió:
>
> Dear colleagues
> I've thought deeply on this, reread the working and final documents
> from 2006 and 2007, and have come to some very certain conclusions.
>
> The Secretariat is the position under which the ultimate
> responsibility for these calculations resides. The fact that we have
> not heard from Humberto on this issue is troubling. Staff are
> available to assist the Secretariat and Chair, but cannot bear the
> responsibility to the membership, as they are not the ones that we
> voted to hold such.
>
> I also believe that the consequences of the correct calculation of the
> vote should be spelled out so that there is no confusion.
>
> Given the very clear intent of the rule, it is obvious that as a
> consequence any motion (including motions for elections) CANNOT be
> passed if the weighted vote by ALS representatives that abstain or do
> not vote is more than 50%.
>
> Hence, I believe the motion to elect an ALAC representative has failed.
> I look forward to the next steps, and I hope that these, unlike the
> previous, will adhere to both the letter and spirit of the Rules of
> the LACRALO as drafted and duly approved.
>
> Jacqueline A. Morris
> Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and
> Free. (after Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> )
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 7:31 PM, Jacqueline Morris
> <jam at jacquelinemorris.com <mailto:jam at jacquelinemorris.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Alberto
> I would like to insert some factual historical information into
> this discussion.
>
> The concern when developing the RoP was to ensure that a minority
> of the organisation could not agree to motions without a majority
> present and voting. Hence, the rule for a virtual assembly is that
> every ALS is considered to be present as each is issued voting
> credentials. And so a motion cannot be carried on a minority
> voting on a motion if the majority abstains or don't vote.
>
> I don't know when the change was made, but it is counter to the
> established and documented process. I believe if such a
> fundamental change were to be made to the established voting
> process, it should have been discussed and voted upon by the
> membership. It may be that the Big Pulse system was wrongly
> programmed to calculate, but it certainly should have been double
> checked!
>
> Sincerely
>
>
> Jacqueline A. Morris
> Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible
> and Free. (after Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> )
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:21 PM, <asoto at ibero-americano.org
> <mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org>> wrote:
>
>
> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
>
> Subject: The Numbers are Plain Wrong.
> From: asoto at ibero-americano.org
> <mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org>
>
> Lord Samuels, a continuation transcribe Rule 12.2 of the
> Common Rules
> LACRALO Procedure: In accordance with the provisions of the
> Rules 6.2 and 16, decisions shall be by a majority of decidirn
> Large Structures present and voting; for the purposes of
> these Rules,
> the expression Large Structures present vote will refer the
> Large Structures casting an affirmative or negative vote. At
> Large Structures refrain from voting if they considerarcomo
> they would not have voted.
>
>
> In English: 12.2 Subject to the Provisions of Rules 6.2 and
> 16, decisions
> Shall be taken by a majority of the At Large Structures
> present and voting;
> for the purpose of the present Rules, the expression "At
> Large Structures
> present and voting "shall mean At Large Structures
> casting an affirmative or
> negative vote.At Large Structures abstaining from voting
> Shall Be Regarded
> Having Voted as not.
>
>
> As see, you have to count the number of ALS present, it is,
> they have cast their vote, whatever its option. We understand
> that
> Large structures who voted for the abstention option, have issued
> one vote, which even can be considered negative. Positive
> votes are
> those who go sb candidate.
>
>
> The rule saying abstaining, we understand that concern
> Scope those structures that have not No single act. In
> simple terms did not vote for any option.
>
>
> The Big Push system is automatic, no intervention of any person.
> The percentage taken are correct.
>
>
> Years ago that the system works the same way, and has never been
> observed or rejected.
>
>
> Made the clarification, I ask again please not to issue
> grievances and insults on the list.
>
>
> If you observe or perform a critical, please, just doing hgalo
> s reference to the fact in citing the article and reference
> standard.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Alberto Soto
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Avast antivirus software has analyzed this e-mail for viruses.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
>
> [[--Original text (es)
> http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/5d9c81c614.html
> --]]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150916/a933c997/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list