Re: [lac-discuss-en] The election motion... Has failed to pass.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
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.
I don't know when the change was made, but it is counter to the
established and documented process. I believe if such a
fundamental change were to be made to the established voting
process, it should have been discussed and voted upon by the
membership. It may be that the Big Pulse system was wrongly
programmed to calculate, but it certainly should have been double
checked!
Sincerely
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 6:21 PM, <asoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:asoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: The Numbers are Plain Wrong.
From: asoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:asoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Lord Samuels, a continuation transcribe Rule 12.2 of the
Common Rules
LACRALO Procedure: In accordance with the provisions of the
Rules 6.2 and 16, decisions shall be by a majority of decidirn
Large Structures present and voting; for the purposes of
these Rules,
the expression Large Structures present vote will refer the
Large Structures casting an affirmative or negative vote. At
Large Structures refrain from voting if they considerarcomo
they would not have voted.
In English: 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
Having Voted as not.
As see, you have to count the number of ALS present, it is,
they have cast their vote, whatever its option. We understand
that
Large structures who voted for the abstention option, have issued
one vote, which even can be considered negative. Positive
votes are
those who go sb candidate.
The rule saying abstaining, we understand that concern
Scope those structures that have not No single act. In
simple terms did not vote for any option.
The Big Push system is automatic, no intervention of any person.
The percentage taken are correct.
Years ago that the system works the same way, and has never been
observed or rejected.
Made the clarification, I ask again please not to issue
grievances and insults on the list.
If you observe or perform a critical, please, just doing hgalo
s reference to the fact in citing the article and reference
standard.
Cheers
Alberto Soto
---
Avast antivirus software has analyzed this e-mail for viruses.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/5d9c81c614.html
--]]
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-en mailing list
lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
_______________________________________________