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@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hcarrascob@xxxxxxxxx>> 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:
ÂHarold Arcos
ÂJuan Manuel Rojas
ÂAbstain
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 escribiÃ:
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en