[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 De: crg@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 "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 â 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en lista de correo lac-discuss-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 --]]
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@isoc-cr.org>:
[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 De: crg@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en lista de correo lac-discuss-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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- Aida Noblia
====English after Spanish version====== Queridos amigos, Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situación. Como saben, apoyé la elección de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se había agotado de manera adecuada. Lo sucedido después, es historia. Atendiendo a la recomendación del Ombudsman, sería deseable llevar a cabo el proceso de elección del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que pediría al Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso, establezcan, claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarán a la elección, es decir: 1. ¿Cuando se abrirá la convocatoria para nominaciones? 2. ¿Cuando se cerrará la convocatoria para nominaciones? 3. ¿Cuales serán los criterios de elegibilidad? 4. ¿Cuál será el período para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos? 5. ¿Existirá un debate? 6. ¿Cuando se llevará a cabo la votación? 7. ¿Si hay una sola nominación se votará igualmente? 8. ¿Si hay varias nominaciones, cómo se eliminarán candidatos? 9. ¿Habrá una sola vuelta de votación? 10. ¿Serán varias hasta que resten únicamente dos candidatos? 11. ¿cómo se designará al candidato electo?¿Será por mayoría de las ALS que voten? ¿Será por mayoría de las ALS certificadas actualmente? ¿Las abstenciones se contarán? 12. ¿Es conveniente pensar en un Comité Electoral? Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reunión de Dublin, donde al finalizar deberá iniciar su período quien resulte electo, está al vuelta de la esquina. Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que establezcan las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continúen el procedimiento de reposición de elección. =====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 candidates’ 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 León
El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> escribió:
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@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org>>:
[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 De: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@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 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> 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/ <https://omblog.icann.org/> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman <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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en> lac-discuss-en lista de correo lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en>
[[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ca4c48f5a3.html <http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ca4c48f5a3.html> --]]
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es>
http://www.lacralo.org <http://www.lacralo.org/>
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
Estimado Leon y todos. Claro que todos lamentamos esta situación. Estamos trabajando con el Staff para comenzar el proceso de votación, el cual si se termina con las traducciones y aclaraciones se largará esta noche o mañana. Creemos que están contempladas todas las pregunta. El comité electoral y las modificaciones necesarias a nuestras reglas, se tratarán luego de que sean aprobadas, espero prontamente, las Métricas y Procedimientos que están abriéndose a su último período de comentarios (aún en proceso de corrección de traducción). Saludos cordiales Alberto Soto De: lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Enviado el: martes, 04 de agosto de 2015 08:58 p.m. Para: Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> CC: <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2 ====English after Spanish version====== Queridos amigos, Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situación. Como saben, apoyé la elección de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se había agotado de manera adecuada. Lo sucedido después, es historia. Atendiendo a la recomendación del Ombudsman, sería deseable llevar a cabo el proceso de elección del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que pediría al Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso, establezcan, claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarán a la elección, es decir: 1. ¿Cuando se abrirá la convocatoria para nominaciones? 2. ¿Cuando se cerrará la convocatoria para nominaciones? 3. ¿Cuales serán los criterios de elegibilidad? 4. ¿Cuál será el período para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos? 5. ¿Existirá un debate? 6. ¿Cuando se llevará a cabo la votación? 7. ¿Si hay una sola nominación se votará igualmente? 8. ¿Si hay varias nominaciones, cómo se eliminarán candidatos? 9. ¿Habrá una sola vuelta de votación? 10. ¿Serán varias hasta que resten únicamente dos candidatos? 11. ¿cómo se designará al candidato electo?¿Será por mayoría de las ALS que voten? ¿Será por mayoría de las ALS certificadas actualmente? ¿Las abstenciones se contarán? 12. ¿Es conveniente pensar en un Comité Electoral? Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reunión de Dublin, donde al finalizar deberá iniciar su período quien resulte electo, está al vuelta de la esquina. Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que establezcan las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continúen el procedimiento de reposición de elección. =====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 candidates’ 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 León El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com <mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> > escribió: 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@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@isoc-cr.org> >: [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 De: crg@isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg@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 <tel:%2B506%208837%207176> 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en lista de correo lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-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@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org <http://www.lacralo.org/> -- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org --- El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Leon muchas gracias por esta acertada y sustantiva intervencion El 04/08/2015 18:59, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> escribió:
====English after Spanish version======
Queridos amigos,
Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situación. Como saben, apoyé la elección de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se había agotado de manera adecuada. Lo sucedido después, es historia.
Atendiendo a la recomendación del Ombudsman, sería deseable llevar a cabo el proceso de elección del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que pediría al Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso, establezcan, claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarán a la elección, es decir:
1. ¿Cuando se abrirá la convocatoria para nominaciones? 2. ¿Cuando se cerrará la convocatoria para nominaciones? 3. ¿Cuales serán los criterios de elegibilidad? 4. ¿Cuál será el período para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos? 5. ¿Existirá un debate? 6. ¿Cuando se llevará a cabo la votación? 7. ¿Si hay una sola nominación se votará igualmente? 8. ¿Si hay varias nominaciones, cómo se eliminarán candidatos? 9. ¿Habrá una sola vuelta de votación? 10. ¿Serán varias hasta que resten únicamente dos candidatos? 11. ¿cómo se designará al candidato electo?¿Será por mayoría de las ALS que voten? ¿Será por mayoría de las ALS certificadas actualmente? ¿Las abstenciones se contarán? 12. ¿Es conveniente pensar en un Comité Electoral?
Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reunión de Dublin, donde al finalizar deberá iniciar su período quien resulte electo, está al vuelta de la esquina.
Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que establezcan las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continúen el procedimiento de reposición de elección.
=====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 candidates’ 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
León
El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> escribió:
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@isoc-cr.org>:
[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 De: crg@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en lista de correo lac-discuss-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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es
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@atlarge-lists.icann.org" on behalf of Antonio Gomes Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 21:08 To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: "lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2 Leon muchas gracias por esta acertada y sustantiva intervencion El 04/08/2015 18:59, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> escribió: ====English after Spanish version====== Queridos amigos, Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situación. Como saben, apoyé la elección de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se había agotado de manera adecuada. Lo sucedido después, es historia. Atendiendo a la recomendación del Ombudsman, sería deseable llevar a cabo el proceso de elección del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que pediría al Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso, establezcan, claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarán a la elección, es decir: 1. ¿Cuando se abrirá la convocatoria para nominaciones? 2. ¿Cuando se cerrará la convocatoria para nominaciones? 3. ¿Cuales serán los criterios de elegibilidad? 4. ¿Cuál será el período para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos? 5. ¿Existirá un debate? 6. ¿Cuando se llevará a cabo la votación? 7. ¿Si hay una sola nominación se votará igualmente? 8. ¿Si hay varias nominaciones, cómo se eliminarán candidatos? 9. ¿Habrá una sola vuelta de votación? 10. ¿Serán varias hasta que resten únicamente dos candidatos? 11. ¿cómo se designará al candidato electo?¿Será por mayoría de las ALS que voten? ¿Será por mayoría de las ALS certificadas actualmente? ¿Las abstenciones se contarán? 12. ¿Es conveniente pensar en un Comité Electoral? Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reunión de Dublin, donde al finalizar deberá iniciar su período quien resulte electo, está al vuelta de la esquina. Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que establezcan las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continúen el procedimiento de reposición de elección. =====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 candidates’ 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 León El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> escribió: 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@isoc-cr.org>: [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 De: crg@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en lista de correo lac-discuss-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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org -- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org
One more thing that I remember. Travel support already started the process for issuing tickets etc. considering that depend upon the elected will may need a visa, we a running out of time for Dublin. 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org" on behalf of Antonio Gomes Date: Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at 21:08 To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Cc: "lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org" Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Regla 11.2 Leon muchas gracias por esta acertada y sustantiva intervencion El 04/08/2015 18:59, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> escribió: ====English after Spanish version====== Queridos amigos, Lamento mucho que estemos viviendo esta situación. Como saben, apoyé la elección de Lance Hinds por considerar que el proceso se había agotado de manera adecuada. Lo sucedido después, es historia. Atendiendo a la recomendación del Ombudsman, sería deseable llevar a cabo el proceso de elección del ALAC member para LACRALO nuevamente. Lo que pediría al Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO es que, en todo caso, establezcan, claramente y a priori, las reglas que se aplicarán a la elección, es decir: 1. ¿Cuando se abrirá la convocatoria para nominaciones? 2. ¿Cuando se cerrará la convocatoria para nominaciones? 3. ¿Cuales serán los criterios de elegibilidad? 4. ¿Cuál será el período para escuchar los SOI de los candidatos? 5. ¿Existirá un debate? 6. ¿Cuando se llevará a cabo la votación? 7. ¿Si hay una sola nominación se votará igualmente? 8. ¿Si hay varias nominaciones, cómo se eliminarán candidatos? 9. ¿Habrá una sola vuelta de votación? 10. ¿Serán varias hasta que resten únicamente dos candidatos? 11. ¿cómo se designará al candidato electo?¿Será por mayoría de las ALS que voten? ¿Será por mayoría de las ALS certificadas actualmente? ¿Las abstenciones se contarán? 12. ¿Es conveniente pensar en un Comité Electoral? Tenemos muy poco tiempo para llevar a cabo este proceso. La reunión de Dublin, donde al finalizar deberá iniciar su período quien resulte electo, está al vuelta de la esquina. Hago un llamado urgente a nuestro Presidente y Secretario para que establezcan las reglas, abran la convocatoria y continúen el procedimiento de reposición de elección. =====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 candidates’ 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 León El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> escribió: 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@isoc-cr.org>: [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2 De: crg@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en lac-discuss-en lista de correo lac-discuss-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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org -- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-es mailing list lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es http://www.lacralo.org
participants (6)
-
Aida Noblia -
Alberto Soto -
Antonio Medina Gómez -
crg＠isoc-cr.org -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Vanda Scartezini