Thank you Roosevelt. You are absolutely correct. Best regards On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Roosevelt King <rok@bango.org.bb> wrote:
Dear Staff,
I question your interpretation of this outcome. Since there was only one nomination, the onus is on the “no” vote to win. An abstention is not a “no” vote but it is a vote and hence even though not a yes vote, cannot be counted as a “no” vote. Therefore the “no” vote must exceed all other votes to win. In this case it has not.
Note that this is not a matter of adding the abstentions to the ‘yes” vote. There are three results and for any result to win it must exceed the total amount of the other results plus one. Note very clearly that this is not a vote for more than one candidate where only the yes and no votes count. Here is a matter to confirm a candidate and the only way that candidate can lose is if the majority vote of the group votes no.
Especially in this case where this is an online vote which gives the entire group the opportunity to vote over time. According to our rules a quorum is not required for an online vote for the specific fact that all members are deemed to be present. Unless a member is deemed inactive, it would seem to me that the no vote should be half of the entire group plus one and not just half plus one of those voting, where it should not matter whether or not all the other members voted yes, abstained or did not vote. My understanding is that LACRALO has 47 members. Hence a no vote of 23.5 + 1 = 24.5 votes would have to be amounted by the “no” vote in order to win. You are not worrying about a quorum because all members are deemed present. Even if you did it based on the amount voting, the no vote still loses since the requirement would be 21.5 + 1 votes = 22.5 votes and since there are no half votes, that would be 23 votes to win because you need 22.5 votes to win.
It would seem to me that in the spirit of a democratic and transparent process and where one person is to be confirmed, that the onus must be on the “no” vote to exceed half of the members of the constituency. For those who abstained or did not vote, there is only one consideration and that is that if more than half the group did not want to confirm a candidate, they would rise up and ensure they voted no. That did not happen in this case. Sufficient people did not say no or voted no and hence the confirmation process is complete in favour of the candidate. Any other way of interpreting this can only run counter to the spirit of democracy and would be less than transparent. Actually bordering on unfair and manipulative.
I am therefore calling on staff to recall that message and post a correct message based on the fact that the “no” vote needs 23 votes since all members are assumed present and a result is based on the majority of the constituency because there is only one candidate in the confirmation process.
Thanking you for your cooperation.
ROK
*From:* lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *ICANN At-Large Staff *Sent:* Tuesday, 28 July 2015 09:53 *To:* lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org; lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Subject:* [lac-discuss-en] VOTE RESULTS: LACRALO Confirmation Poll - ALAC Representative (2015 AGM - 2017 AGM)
== EN==
Dear All,
Kindly note that the LACRALO Confirmation Poll – ALAC Representative (2015 AGM – 2017 AGM) is now closed. Please see below the vote result being sent on behalf of Alberto Soto, Chair of LACRALO, and Humberto Carrasco, Secretary of LACRALO.
—
QUESTION: Do you wish to confirm Lance Hinds as the ALAC representative from LACRALO for the period AGM2015 through AGM2017?
*Yes
*No
*Abstention
—
As at Poll close: Monday 27 July 2015 23:00 UTC Number of voters: 43 · Group size: 47 · Percentage voted: 91.49 Ranked by votes
*Rank*
*Options*
*Votes*
*%*
1
No/No
21
48.84
2
Yes/Si
19
44.19
3
Abstain/Abstención
3
6.98
Counting only Yes and No votes, the percentages are:
No 21/40 = 52.5%
Yes 19/40 = 47.5%
The selection process for the ALAC seat currently occupied by Fatima Cambronero will be restarted with a new call for nominations.
You may view the result independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=4940Zw4m2YAWxvmPU7PAWLyP
== ES ==
Hola a todos,
Favor de notar que la Encuesta de Confirmación de LACRALO para el Representante en ALAC (2015-2017 AGM) se encuentra cerrada. Por favor, encuentre enseguida el resultado de la votación el cual está siendo enviado en nombre de Alberto Soto, Presidente de LACRALO y Humberto Carrasco, Secretario de LACRALO.
—
PREGUNTA: Desea confirmar a Lance Hinds como representante de LACRALO ante el ALAC para el periodo del AGM2015 hasta el AGM2017?
*Si
*No
*Abstención
—
Al cerrar el voto: Lunes 27 de Julio 2015 23:00 GMT
Número de votantes: 43 · Tamaño del grupo: 47 · Porcentaje de voto: 91.49
clasificado por votos
*Posición*
*Opciones*
*Votos*
*%*
1
No/No
21
48.84
2
Yes/Si
19
44.19
3
Abstain/Abstención
3
6.98
Contando solamente los votos 'Si' y 'No', los porcentajes son:
No 21/40 = 52.5%
Si 19/40 = 47.5%
El proceso de selección para el asiento de ALAC actualmente ocupado por Fátima Cambronero será reiniciado a través de una nueva convocatoria.
Puede revisar los resultados independientemente bajo: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=4940Zw4m2YAWxvmPU7PAWLyP
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew
ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>
Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
-- Lance Hinds Chief Technology Officer BrainStreet Group 287 'C' Albert St. Georgetown Guyana This message contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential and is the property of BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning. The information contained herein is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it . If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or take any action in reliance to the contents of this information or any part thereof and it may be unlawful to do so. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message from your system. BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning are neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt.