Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2
> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
Thank you Leon for bring it to light again. We have the Ombudsman
recommendation. If we have consulted the Ombudsman looks reasonable to follow
his recommendation, but since recommendation is not mandatory, we need a final
decision on this issue.
Best regards
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
From: "lac-discuss-es-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" on behalf of Antonio
Gomes
Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 21:08
To: LeÃn Felipe SÃnchez AmbÃa
Cc: "lac-discuss-es@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2
Leon muchas gracias por esta acertada y sustantiva intervencion
El 04/08/2015 18:59, "LeÃn Felipe SÃnchez AmbÃa" <leonfelipe@xxxxxxxxxx>
escribiÃ:
====English after Spanish version======
Queridos amigos,
Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situaciÃn. Como saben, apoyà la
elecciÃn de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se habÃa agotado de
manera adecuada. Lo sucedido despuÃs, es historia.
Atendiendo a la recomendaciÃn del Ombudsman, serÃa deseable llevar a cabo el
proceso de elecciÃn del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que pedirÃa al
Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso, establezcan,
claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarÃn a la elecciÃn, es decir:
1. ÂCuando se abrirà la convocatoria para nominaciones?
2. ÂCuando se cerrarà la convocatoria para nominaciones?
3. ÂCuales serÃn los criterios de elegibilidad?
4. ÂCuÃl serà el perÃodo para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos?
5. ÂExistirà un debate?
6. ÂCuando se llevarà a cabo la votaciÃn?
7. ÂSi hay una sola nominaciÃn se votarà igualmente?
8. ÂSi hay varias nominaciones, cÃmo se eliminarÃn candidatos?
9. ÂHabrà una sola vuelta de votaciÃn?
10. ÂSerÃn varias hasta que resten Ãnicamente dos candidatos?
11. ÂcÃmo se designarà al candidato electo?ÂSerà por mayorÃa de las ALS que
voten? ÂSerà por mayorÃa de las ALS certificadas actualmente? ÂLas abstenciones
se contarÃn?
12. ÂEs conveniente pensar en un Comità Electoral?
Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reuniÃn de Dublin,
donde al finalizar deberà iniciar su perÃodo quien resulte electo, està al
vuelta de la esquina.
Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que establezcan
las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continÃen el procedimiento de reposiciÃn de
elecciÃn.
=====English version============
Dear friends,
I deeply regret that we are living this situation. As you know, I supported the
election of Lance Hinds, considering that the process had been exhausted
properly. What happened after, is history.
Following the recommendation of the Ombudsman, it would be desirable to conduct
the election process of the LACRALO ALAC member again. What I would ask the
President and Secretary of LACRALO is that they establish the rules that will
run the election process in a very clear manner and, of course, a priori. For
example, the following questions come to my mind:
1. When will the call for nominations begin?
2. When will the call for nominations close?
3. What are the eligibility criteria?
4. What will be the time to listen to the candidatesâ SOIs?
5. Will there be a debate?
6.When will the vote take place?
7. If there is only one nomination will there still be a vote?
8. If there are multiple nominations, how will candidates be shortlisted?
9. Will there be a single round of voting?
10. Will there be several voting round until there are only two candidates left?
11. How will the winning candidate be determined? Will it be determined by
majority of votes from those ALSs voting? Will it be determined by majority of
votes of all certified ALSs? Will abstentions count?
12. Would it be convenient to think of an Electoral Committee?
We have very little time to carry out this process. The meeting in Dublin,
where the elected candidate will begin his/her term, is around the corner.
I urge our President and Secretary to establish the rules, open the call for
nominations and continue to carry the voting process.
Saludos, Best regards
LeÃn
El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@xxxxxxxxx> escribiÃ:
Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y adecuadas.
Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situaciÃn 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 complicaciÃn que se generà en esta oportunidad :
Por ejemplo si hay un solo candidato y dentro del plazo establecido no se
presentà otro, ni hubo objeciones: ese que da. Sin necesidad de encuesta.
Personalmente me parece la soluciÃn mÃs clara y sencilla.
2. Dado el caso de que ya ocurriÃ: se hizo la encuesta y dio el resultado para
resolver este caso que ya està dada: hacer nueva elecciÃn.
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@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2
De: crg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Queridos miembros de LACRALO,
Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentaciÃn razonable de todos los miembros
de la
OpiniÃn del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales
das
"En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crÃtica de la
decisiÃn de celebrar una encuesta, con un nÃmero teniendo en cuenta que la
lanza Hinds
debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el Ãnico candidato, sin
la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, serÃa Ãtil tener un
opiniÃn de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever
esto especÃficamente. Pero en una situaciÃn en la que ha habido un voto
en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo serÃa volver a ejecutar la
elecciÃn,
y esa es mi recomendaciÃn ".
Atentamente
Carlos RaÃl GutiÃrrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribiÃ:
> 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 Ãââ 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
lac-discuss-en lista de correo
lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
[[--Original text (en)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ca4c48f5a3.html
--]]
_______________________________________________