<div dir="ltr">Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y adecuadas. <div><br></div><div>Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situación presente y buscan resolver a futuro para que no ocurra otra vez el problema.<div><br></div><div>1. La de promover el cambio de la regla actual a una regla clara, que elimine la complicación que se generó en esta oportunidad : </div><div><br></div><div> Por ejemplo si hay un solo candidato y dentro del plazo establecido no se presentó otro, ni hubo objeciones: ese que da. Sin necesidad de encuesta. </div><div><br></div><div>Personalmente me parece la solución más clara y sencilla.</div><div><br></div><div>2. Dado el caso de que ya ocurrió: se hizo la encuesta y dio el resultado para resolver este caso que ya está dada: hacer nueva elección.</div><div><br></div><div>Parece razonable para salir del paso ahora y poder avanzar en otros temas de gran importancia.</div><div><br></div><div>Saludos a todos</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"> <br><div class="gmail_quote">2015-08-04 11:06 GMT-03:00 <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org" target="_blank">crg@isoc-cr.org</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span><br>
[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]<br>
<br>
Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2<br>
</span> De: <a href="mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org" target="_blank">crg@isoc-cr.org</a><br>
<br>
Queridos miembros de LACRALO,<br>
<br>
<br>
Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentación razonable de todos los miembros de la<br>
Opinión del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales<br>
das<br>
&quot;En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crítica de la<br>
decisión de celebrar una encuesta, con un número teniendo en cuenta que la lanza Hinds<br>
debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el único candidato, sin<br>
<span> la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, sería útil tener un<br>
</span> opinión de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever<br>
<span> esto específicamente. Pero en una situación en la que ha habido un voto<br>
en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo sería volver a ejecutar la elección,<br>
</span> y esa es mi recomendación &quot;.<br>
<br>
<br>
Atentamente<br>
<br>
<br>
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez<br>
<a href="tel:%2B506%208837%207176" value="+50688377176" target="_blank">+506 8837 7176</a><br>
Skype: carlos.raulg<br>
El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribió:<br>
<br>
<br>
> Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the<br>
> election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair<br>
> procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at<br>
> matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore<br>
> includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I<br>
> receive a complaint of unfairness.<br>
><br>
> The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the<br>
> period 2015 – 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call<br>
> for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The<br>
> nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that<br>
> period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no<br>
> other nominations. The timetable would have included an election<br>
> period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations<br>
> were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected<br>
> by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that<br>
> because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required<br>
> that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS<br>
> supported the sole nomination.<br>
><br>
> On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was<br>
> suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged<br>
> that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of<br>
> interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small<br>
> software development company, and is the president of a local business<br>
> support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict.<br>
> He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN<br>
> policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election<br>
> process rather than a poll subsequently held.<br>
><br>
> The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the<br>
> results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which<br>
> were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were<br>
> not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that<br>
> the results meant that there had to be a new election.<br>
><br>
> I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to<br>
> all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer<br>
> organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of<br>
> persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of<br>
> people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries.<br>
><br>
> It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are<br>
> only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability<br>
> to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my<br>
> view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic<br>
> volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly<br>
> canvass those issues.<br>
><br>
><br>
> In general, when there is an election process which has been<br>
> challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There<br>
> is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run<br>
> correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open<br>
> and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any<br>
> issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the<br>
> second process fully aware of the issues.<br>
><br>
> In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to<br>
> hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have<br>
> been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need<br>
> for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus<br>
> view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this<br>
> specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a<br>
> candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that<br>
> is my recommendation.<br>
><br>
> I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to<br>
> contact me, in confidence if necessary.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Chris LaHatte<br>
> Ombudsman<br>
> Blog <a href="https://omblog.icann.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://omblog.icann.org/</a><br>
> Webpage <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> Confidentiality<br>
> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as<br>
> confidential.<br>
> The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to<br>
> preserve the<br>
> privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the<br>
> complaint<br>
> being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make<br>
> inquiries<br>
> about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity<br>
> of, a<br>
> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The<br>
> Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if<br>
> staff<br>
> and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a<br>
> complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such<br>
> information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a<br>
> complaint<br>
<span>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> lac-discuss-en mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en</a><br>
lac-discuss-en lista de correo<br>
<a href="mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[[--Original text (en)<br>
</span><a href="http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ca4c48f5a3.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ca4c48f5a3.html</a><br>
--]]<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
lac-discuss-es mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es</a><br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.lacralo.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.lacralo.org</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Aida Noblia</div>
</div></div></div></div>