[lac-discuss-en] The election motion... Has failed to pass.
Humberto Carrasco
hcarrascob at gmail.com
Wed Sep 16 22:11:09 UTC 2015
Dear Jacqueline,
I am sorry for the delay. This is because I try to write in Spanish and
English so that in that way the two lists can clearly understand. This
takes me several hours.
The rule 12.2 states:
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 as having not voted.
The rule regulates three situations:
1. That an At Large Structure casts an affirmative vote//
2. That an At Large Structure casts a negative vote
3. That an At Large Structure abstains from voting.
An example covering these three situations would be:
Do you support XXXX to become Chair of Lacralo??
1. YES
2. NO
If an At Large Structure votes YES, it is issuing an affirmative vote.
If an At Large Structure votes NO, it is issuing a negative vote.
If an At Large Structure does nothing, it is abstaining from voting.
This exampleperfectlysatisfy theassumptionsof the rule.
However, in the situation arising from the ALAC Member election, the
situation is different and the rule does not fit properly.
The question asked was:
QUESTION: Who do you support to become the LACRALO ALAC Representative
for the period of two years beginning at the end of the ICANN Dublin
Meeting in October 2015? Please either select one candidate from the
list below (listed in alphabetical order of the family name) or abstain:
·Harold Arcos
·Juan Manuel Rojas
·Abstain
The vote given in favor of Harold Arcos or Juan Manuel Rojas is an
affirmative vote.
The vote by abstention option is a negative vote.
The ALSs who did nothing, they abstained from voting.
Therefore, the results were delivered correctly.
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/c3cee9f6/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list