[lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2
Aida Noblia
aidanoblia en gmail.com
Mar Ago 4 16:08:05 UTC 2015
Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y adecuadas.
Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situación presente y buscan
resolver a futuro para que no ocurra otra vez el problema.
1. La de promover el cambio de la regla actual a una regla clara, que
elimine la complicación que se generó en esta oportunidad :
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.
Personalmente me parece la solución más clara y sencilla.
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.
Parece razonable para salir del paso ahora y poder avanzar en otros temas
de gran importancia.
Saludos a todos
2015-08-04 11:06 GMT-03:00 <crg en isoc-cr.org>:
>
> [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
>
> Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2
> De: crg en isoc-cr.org
>
> Queridos miembros de LACRALO,
>
>
> Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentación razonable de todos los
> miembros de la
> Opinión del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales
> das
> "En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crítica de la
> decisión de celebrar una encuesta, con un número teniendo en cuenta que
> la lanza Hinds
> debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el único candidato, sin
> la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, sería útil tener un
> opinión de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever
> esto específicamente. Pero en una situación en la que ha habido un voto
> en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo sería volver a ejecutar la
> elección,
> y esa es mi recomendación ".
>
>
> Atentamente
>
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> +506 8837 7176
> Skype: carlos.raulg
> El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribió:
>
>
> > Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the
> > election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair
> > procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at
> > matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore
> > includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I
> > receive a complaint of unfairness.
> >
> > The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the
> > period 2015 – 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call
> > for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The
> > nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that
> > period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no
> > other nominations. The timetable would have included an election
> > period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations
> > were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected
> > by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that
> > because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required
> > that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS
> > supported the sole nomination.
> >
> > On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was
> > suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged
> > that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of
> > interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small
> > software development company, and is the president of a local business
> > support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict.
> > He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN
> > policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election
> > process rather than a poll subsequently held.
> >
> > The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the
> > results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which
> > were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were
> > not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that
> > the results meant that there had to be a new election.
> >
> > I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to
> > all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer
> > organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of
> > persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of
> > people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries.
> >
> > It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are
> > only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability
> > to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my
> > view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic
> > volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly
> > canvass those issues.
> >
> >
> > In general, when there is an election process which has been
> > challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There
> > is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run
> > correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open
> > and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any
> > issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the
> > second process fully aware of the issues.
> >
> > In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to
> > hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have
> > been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need
> > for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus
> > view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this
> > specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a
> > candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that
> > is my recommendation.
> >
> > I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to
> > contact me, in confidence if necessary.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris LaHatte
> > Ombudsman
> > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
> > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
> >
> >
> > Confidentiality
> > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
> > confidential.
> > The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to
> > preserve the
> > privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the
> > complaint
> > being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make
> > inquiries
> > about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity
> > of, a
> > complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The
> > Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if
> > staff
> > and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a
> > complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such
> > information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a
> > complaint
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lac-discuss-en mailing list
> > lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
> lac-discuss-en lista de correo
> lac-discuss-en en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
>
>
>
> [[--Original text (en)
> http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ca4c48f5a3.html
> --]]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-es mailing list
> lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
>
> http://www.lacralo.org
>
--
Aida Noblia
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/attachments/20150804/1a6cab2c/attachment-0001.html>
Más información sobre la lista de distribución lac-discuss-es