Dear all,  Allow me make a comment about transparency, saying : method propose by Jose is absolutely transparent because show every support recibed by each candidate on the wiki, without a necesity to do an useless election on this particular situation.  Also, consensus need a previous discussion,  in this  case result impossible , just because time expired on june 25 , and we cant conduct an effective exchange of ideas on the 2 days extension.  I personally cant find what is the argument of Sergio statement on this issue.  My two cents.  Carlos Dionisio Aguirre.  Enviado desde Samsung tabletalberto@soto.net.ar escribió: [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Voting Candidate NomCom - Staff Appreciation - Proposal From: alberto@soto.net.ar Dear, for erroneous synchronization problem of my email accounts, I thought it was defined and vote just got the credentials. This does not mean that my opinion. I agree with Jose, and I do not see lack of transparency in this process, as in any other process that was responsible. I think we should take care of our opinions, and think hard before publicly offend someone. Best Regards Alberto Soto Sent from my BlackBerry from Claro Argentina ----- Original Message ----- From: JosFrancisco Arce <josefranciscoarce@gmail.com> Sender: lac-discuss-es-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Wed, June 27, 2013 11:31:18 To: President Internaut <presidencia@internauta.org.ar> Cc: At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> , LACRALO Spanish <lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org> , Sylvia @ prontocl <sylvia@prontocl.com.br> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-es] Candidate Voting NomCom - Appreciation staff - Proposal Dear Sergio, I thank you for your kind email. But I want to tell you I feel certain contradictions in your written lines. But I want to clarify something very important and I have to aclarrtelo strange since you're a person with experience in the region, and I mentioned in my previous mail. * Goes back *: In the interest of transparency you request by email, is that I tell you that I can not let it continue what you and 3 people call ms and go ahead with that, when other ESTN not agree. As you know, the region is the one to make the decisions, not me, not Secretary, not you, and the region must operate by consensus, in case is not (consensus is not what you and several people think ms) Voting should go Democratic is the way that helps solve the lack of consensus. Particularly you're asking the region follow your point of view, and you had the support of several people, but not all. And is more, only propusiste your own point of view, without providing alternatives or think those who disagreed; alternatives that I try to give reconciling all interests, which is my function. My proposal does not violate any rule set and is not dangerous, only reconciles the interests of both parties who are in disagreement. REMEMBER: Some want to meet the deadlines and send the list to ALAC (with my proposal hara) and others want to vote for the candidate preferential (If all expressed their support in the wiki these candidates is the same as going to vote, ALAC could only follow a link to see who has more support). Now tel