[lac-discuss-en] The election motion... Has failed to pass.

Humberto Carrasco hcarrascob at gmail.com
Thu Sep 17 21:56:13 UTC 2015

Dear Carlton,

I appreciate your concern. Luckily my family is fine. We'll see if there 
is any damage in my apartment during the week. Life is irreplaceable 
while all the material things can be replaced.
In reference to your mail, I would like to ask more time to reply. 
Therefore, I can explain more deeply because I disagree with your 
position. I still have to deal with issues of LACRALO and also now with 
issues derivative from the earthquake.

Thanking you in advance.


El 17/09/2015 a las 21:58, Carlton Samuels escribió:
> Humberto:
> I hope the earthquake and tsunami has not affected you or your family 
> directly and you are all safe and healthy. We are very sorry to hear 
> of the devastation and the lives lost as a result.
> Even before Jacqueline responds, I am responding to yours. Since I 
> drafted the Rules of Procedure,  I can tell you authoritatively that 
> in this instance it is Jacqueline that is correct. Your interpretation 
> of the RoP fouls not just the intent of the rule but the plain 
> language as well.
> First of all, once credentials are issued to an ALS for an election, 
> they are considered PRESENT.
> Think now of your own national election, when Michelle Bachelet was 
> elected President of Chile in 2013. Voting is now voluntary in Chile. 
> You got your ballot when you arrived at the polling station in your 
> electoral district.  You are then Present.  You could vote for 
> Bachelet. You could vote for Mathei. Or, you could say 'to hell with 
> the lot of them' and deliberately spoil the ballot. Or, if it is 
> allowed, even walk away with the ballot in your pocket. Just another 
> way to protest both candidates.
> Lets begin to help you parse Rule 12, clause by clause.  Take the 
> clause "decisions shall be taken by a majority".
> Let's go back to elections in Chile. There is a concept of a runoff in 
> Chilean elections, no?  I would presume you know why there is such a 
> rule there? For the first time in 2013, unlike the previous three (3) 
> national elections, no runoff. Can I therefore accept that you 
> understand the meaning of the word 'majority' in that context?
> Majority has a very specific meaning.  It means over 50%, at minimum 
> 50% +1.
> Move to the next clause. This: "At Large Structures present and 
> voting" shall mean At Large Structures casting an affirmative or 
> negative vote"
> Note the use of the conjunction "OR" here. That 'or' is used to denote 
> choice. Because depending on the question, one could respond in the 
> affirmative (YES) or negative (NO).  In other words, both are definite 
> responses.
> The motion DID NOT give a plain choice of  YES or NO. That choice is 
> assumed in execution.  All votes for Arcos must be interpreted as a 
> YES. Similarly, the votes for Rojas must be interpreted as a YES.
> Finally, the last clause. This " At Large Structures abstaining from 
> voting shall be regarded as having not voted."
> I'm not sure if its the infinitive 'abstaining' that has you confused. 
> But the word 'abstain' in the motion means exactly what the rule says. 
> The term 'having not voted' is a direct instruction for interpreting 
> the column 'abstain'. It means count them as a NO vote.
> So now, what of the other ballots?   Think about those for a few 
> minutes.  And as you do so, think what would be a rational number to 
> be returned for a candidate to say "I represent the interests of the 
> majority of the membership of LACRALO".
> -Carlton Samuels
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/
> =============================
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Humberto Carrasco 
> <hcarrascob at gmail.com <mailto:hcarrascob at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     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.
>     ...
>     [Message clipped]
>     _______________________________________________
>     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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20150917/8af729cb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list