October 2015 - lac-discuss-en

VOTE RESULTS: LACRALO Vote on Motion Proposed by Alejandro Pisanty / LACRALO vote on the motion proposed by Alejandro Pisanty
by staff＠atlarge.icann.org Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: VOTE RESULTS: LACRALO Vote on Motion Proposed by Alejandro Pisanty / LACRALO vote on the motion proposed by Alejandro Pisanty From: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Dear All, Please be so kind to note That the First Vote With regard to the Proposed Motion of No Confidence by Carlton Samuels is now completed. The voting process was Governed by rules 12, 19 and 20 of LACRALO's RoP. Concerning the Proposed resolution, the following question was Asked in the First Vote: *** QUESTION: Do you believe LACRALO That is competent to vote a motion of no confidence? 1. Yes, the motion of no confidence must move forward. 2. No, the motion of no confidence must be ignored. Of the total of 47 ALS In This voting process, ALS Voted 28 (equivalent to 58.89% of the total weight). The minimum quorum requirement was 24 ALS. Option YES = 7 votes equivalent to 13.61% of the total weight. Option NO = 21 votes equivalent to 45.28% of the total weight. Abstentions to vote = 19 votes equivalent to 41.11% of the total weight. ACCORDING TO RULE 12.2, At Large Structures abstaining from voting Shall Be Regarded as Having Voted not. Poll As at close: Friday 16 October 2015 23:00 UTC Number of voters: 28 Group size: 47 Percentage Voted: 58.89 of the total weight Ranked by votes Rank Options Weighted Votes % You votes % Voters 1 No, the motion of no confidence must be ignored / No, the censorship mocin be ignored 4531.0000 76.87 21 75.00 Olvidio Jose Salgueiro (W167), Adrian Carballo (W56), Monica Abalo Laforgia (W56), Javier Eduardo Rojas Chandia (W250), Dr.Basilio Vargas isolated (W125), Sergio Salinas Porto Walter (W56), Cristian Casas (W56), Alberto Soto (W56), Jose Luis Barzallo (W125), Gilberto Lara (w500), Ana Maria Moreno (W167), Diego Acosta Bastidas (W125), Aida Noblia (w500), Humberto Carrasco (W250), Alejandro Pisanty (w500), Luis Sergio Valle Sejas (w500), Alyne Andrade (W125), Mario Aleman (w500), Harold Arcos (W167), Vanda Scartezini (W125), Sylvia Leite Herlein (W125) 2 Yes, the motion of no confidence must move forward / Yes, censorship should proceed mocin 1363.0000 23.13 7 25.00 Antonio Medina Gomez (W167), Juan Manuel Rojas P (W167), Fatima Cambronero (W56), Jose Arce (W56), Maricarmen Buzarquis Sequera (W250), Ricardo Holmquist (W167), Lia Patricia Hernandez Perez (w500) *** As per instruction published on the Next Steps Regarding the Motion of No Confidence < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw>, You May Independently check the vote result under: < https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=5135fyGZMGse8tJTyLP49p9q> https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=5135fyGZMGse8tJTyLP49p9q ES == == Hello everyone, Please note that the first vote on the censure mocin proposed by Mr. Carlton Samuels has been completed. The voting process estargobernado under rules 12, 19 and 20 of the Rules of Procedure of LACRALO. With relacina the resolution proposal, the following is the question of First Vote: *** QUESTION: You believe that LACRALO is competent to vote on the censure mocin? 1. If the mocin censorship should proceed. 2. No, the censorship mocin be ignored. Of the total of 47 ALSes in this process of ballot, they voted ALSes 28 (equivalent to 58.89% of the total weight). The minimum required quorum is 24 ALSes. Option SI - 7 equivalents to 13.61% of the total weight Votes. Option NO - 21 equivalent to 45.28% of the total weight Votes. Abstentions by voting = 19 votes equivalent to 41.11% of the total weight. According to Rule 12.2, the structures that abstain from voting are considered as not having voted. Upon closing the ballot: Friday October 16 2015, 23 UTC. Number of votes: 28. Tamao group: Voters 47. Percentage: 58.89 total weight Votes position Options Position Options Weighted votes % Votes % Voters 1 No, the motion of no confidence must be ignored / No, the censorship mocin be ignored 4531.0000 76.87 21 75.00 Olvidio Jose Salgueiro (W167), Adrian Carballo (W56), Monica Abalo Laforgia (W56), Javier Eduardo Rojas Chandia (W250), Dr. Aislan Basilio Vargas (W125), Sergio Salinas Porto Walter (W56), Cristian Casas ( W56), Alberto Soto (W56), Jose Luis Barzallo (W125), Gilberto Lara (w500), Ana Maria Moreno (W167), Diego Acosta Bastidas (W125), Aida Noblia (w500), Humberto Carrasco (W250), Alejandro Pisanty (w500), Luis Sergio Valle Sejas (w500), Alyne Andrade (W125), Mario Aleman (w500), Harold Arcos (W167), Vanda Scartezini (W125), Sylvia Leite Herlein (W125) 2 Yes, the motion of no confidence must move forward / Yes, censorship should proceed mocin 1363.0000 23.13 7 25.00 Antonio Medina Gomez (W167), Juan Manuel Rojas P (W167), Fatima Cambronero (W56), Jose Arce (W56), Maricarmen Buzarquis Sequera (W250), Ricardo Holmquist (W167), Lia Patricia Hernandez Perez (w500) *** According to the instructions issued in the following steps about censorship mocin < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw>, You can review the results independently under: < https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=5135fyGZMGse8tJTyLP49p9q> https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=5135fyGZMGse8tJTyLP49p9q. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> www.facebook.com/icann <http://www.facebook.com/icann> AtLarge < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/f14f50ffdf.html --]]

1 0

Your response to the Member from TTCS - Trinidad & Tobago - Dev Anand Teelucksingh
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 14, 2015

Oct. 14, 2015

Humberto: I expect Dev will answer in due course but I am gravely concerned that instead of admitting error and amend, you have doubled down on methods to extricate yourself from responsibility of this latest LACRALO debacle. See https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw In another context and purely about leadership style, this reminds me of the Pinochet approach to leadership, a style with which you would be familiar. First of all, it is demonstrably corrupt when you choose to validate your action as privileged and link them to the response from ICANN legal staff. They did NOT offer you a 'legal opinion'. They themselves declare they are NOT competent to answer the question put to them. Without access to the question[s] you put to ICANN Legal Staff, the muck of the evidence from the four (4) motions you're posing allegedly to resolve my motion tells me they were likely as confused as the ones you placed in circulation on this list. First, you may not offer four brand new motions as amendments to one. That is corruption under colour of ignorance and clear evidence of violence against the LACRALO Rules of Procedure, the Rules of Order for democratic proceedings, reason and democratic governance. Second, this: "If the motion of no confidence is reviewed, it can be observed that the request it is not directed to the President ‘*requesting him to make use of some power inherent in his office or specifically given him under the rules of procedure*', but it requests ‘*That the general assembly demonstrate its lack of confidence in the LACRALO leadership and vote on this motion*’." This conception is not just dead wrong. And what is on exhibit here seems to be the notion of ignorance as virtue. Here we go, again. This will require that you make a mental shift from thinking in the physical world to thinking in the virtual world. I readily accept that just as it is the case in policy development, some of us are better at this than others. I trust you are able to follow. The first thing that must be understood and accepted is that when a meeting of LACRALO, virtual or face-to-face, is in session, there is a presiding officer. A LACRALO meeting is in session when the Secretariat gives notice. This meeting was a special meeting and NOT like the monthly teleconference meeting. It was a general assembly. Calling for a vote of the entire membership and issuing credentials to ALL members is your indication that a general assembly of LACRALO is in session. In this case, the big difference is that it is not face-to-face as, for example, the one in Costa Rica. It is a virtual general assembly. Now let's identify the presiding officer in this virtual general assembly. Think back now for a little bit on the process of that face-to-face general assembly in Costa Rica. We hope the light will come hereafter. Recall the process there. Jose Arce was the presiding officer. You could literally see him in action. He was there executing the statutory duty of the Chair of LACRALO, what you like to refer as 'el Presidente'. Those duties are defined in the RoP. Switch your mind now to the virtual general assembly. That assembly is called by the Secretariat. It was called to decide a motion placed before it by the Secretariat. Once the assembly is called and although you cannot 'see' him, there is a presiding officer in the chair. However that officer is easily identified. It is the one who asked the question in the motion that was the basis for calling the assembly. That is, the question we are supposed to answer by the vote. Go back to the message from Staff announcing the vote. You will notice that one Alberto Soto raised the motion and put the question for the vote. What a coincidence this is! As it happens, one Alberto Soto was returned as Chair of LACRALO some time ago. Since the term of office has not expired and this assembly was not informed otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that same Alberto Soto continues to be Chair of LACARLO. By virtue of the RoP, that person, one Alberto Soto, has specific duties. He is the presiding officer at this virtual general assembly. On top of his statutory duties as presiding officer, he has the duty of care. One such duty is to take care to manage the meeting of a democratic organisation by democratic means. You refer the United Nations Rules of Procedure but what you seem not to appreciate either its substance or more importantly, their MEANING in the democratic context. Let's now go to the management of a motion in the general assembly under the very rules you invoked. The assembly is in session. There is a motion on the floor that was placed by the Chair of LACRALO and presiding officer. The motion asks a question for which a vote is going to be used to decide the answer. Members are given seven (7) clear days before the virtual vote is closed. Those days may be used to virtually debate the motion. Under the Rules of Order of the UNGA, a question pertaining the motion under consideration can be raised on a point of order.You did not get this concept right. My motion is NOT special. Motions are classed as procedural or non-procedural. My motion was procedural. The point of order in a face-to-face general assembly is just a matter of a member rising to his or her feet, being recognized by the presiding officer - meaning the presiding officer literally sees the member with his own two eyes - the member's right to speak is acknowledged by the presiding officer and is given the floor to address the assembly. Switch now to the virtual general assembly. In this context, we raise a point of order by electronic means, this time, an email. Given what I know of the tendency to claim ignorance, my email pointedly started with the term 'this is a Point of Order'. I also made sure to state the reason behind my point of order in a motion; it was directly related to the motion before the assembly THEN, that is the vote to elect and to seat a LACRALO representative to the ALAC. My motion detailed that the call for an election was null and void since a representative in the person of Lance Hinds, the member from DevNet Guyana, was already selected. I validated my motion to the assembly by informing the assembly it cannot name another representative when one was already nominated and selected. It is procedural and is questioning the procedure by which the motion for the election was placed before the assembly by the presiding officer. Any election that claims to elect someone other than Lance Hinds, whose nomination was pristine and without blight and NEVER refused to this very moment, is contrary to the rules and, thus, illegal. This action is but another event in the measure of the corruption in LACRALO. And you sir, cannot reasonably deny your active collusion. Under the rules of order in democratic meetings, my point of order must be processed BEFORE the one put to the assembly by the presiding officer. That would be his motion calling for the illegal vote. My point of order contained a motion seeking a vote of no confidence by virtue of the incompetence of the leadership for cause. This request was substantiated by the charges I outlined, the live witness being the illegal vote. The motion was acknowledged by the presiding officer. And we can only assume you acted on the instruction of the presiding officer when you asked for the official translation. If this is otherwise, here is your chance to declare it. Because if this is a rogue operation and on top of acting outside the rules, you would have also undermined the presiding officer in the execution of his duties. In other words you would have seized the office held by the Chair of LACRALO and exercised powers that are not yours to exercise. That is to say, executed a putsch, a coup de etat. In so doing, you would have violated the LACRALO Rules of Procedure, admittedly this time without violence, undermined the office of the Chair of LACRALO and placed the Chair of LACRALO in a position of disrepute. If this is what happened without protest from the presiding officer, the Chair of LACRALO could then be reasonably accused of abandoning his post and contributing to his own disrepute. In any event, the result is a corrupted organisation, suborned in this state by corrupt acts. When the vote is closed and the count is done and unless otherwise stated, the general assembly ends. So the attempt to raise four (4) motions as amendments to my single motion is as Dev pointed out, an attempt to frustrate my single motion. But more important, a LACRALO general assembly is NOT in permanent session. And since the general assembly is not perpetual, your response is not only too late and woefully misplaced. But by definition, a corrupt practice. Assume you now accept what is a motion and the CONTEXT in which the motion was raised, we would be compelled to judge this, your behaviour, as incorrigible. The charge of corruption is substantiated. Kindly, -Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Your response to member TTCS - Trinidad and Tobago - Dev Anand Teelucksingh
by hcarrascob＠gmail.com Oct. 14, 2015

Oct. 14, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Your response to member TTCS - Trinidad and Tobago - Dev Anand Teelucksingh From: hcarrascob(a)gmail.com Dear, I apologize for being unable to respond to the Lord Samuels in English because I do not have time right now to do so. First of all because I have to get rid of responsibility for something I have not committed. I suppose that the reference to Pinochet leadership style that makes the Lord Samuels is because l Vivien Chile and sufripor smismo (or his family) the consequences of the Pinochet regime. On the contrary, the Lord Samuels estcomparando something that knows neither knows how it operates. I tell you that if I have family who was tortured and had to Chile escape to survive. The leadership has LACRALO estlejos power compared with the Pinochet style. I have the impression that any decision that is taken in LACRALO where we do not agree with what he says is the Lord Samuels Pinochet considered leadership style. In turn, we have a discrepancy with respect to the Lord Samuels opinin jurdica the legal department of ICANN, as we discrepancy in the application of the rules governing LACRALO. An when the Lord Samuels participated in the editing of the LACRALO rules, does not mean it decides the Lord Samuels how to interpret the rules. The legal bodies have their own life standards. Otherwise, aesthetical and jams will be applied to new situations. What the Lord Samuels called corruption it is but a discrepancy in the application of standards. This jams may be an act of corruption. The language must take care not to fall into these disqualifications not lead anywhere. Cheers On 10/13/2015 at 19:55, carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com wrote: > [[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] > > Asunto: Su respuesta a la miembro de TTCS - Trinidad y Tobago - Dev Anand Teelucksingh > De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com > > Humberto: > Espero Dev responderá a su debido tiempo, pero estoy muy preocupada de que > en lugar del error y modificar admitir, que ha doblado hacia abajo sobre los métodos a > liberarse a sí mismo de la responsabilidad de esta última debacle LACRALO. > > > Ver https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw > > > En otro contexto y puramente sobre el estilo de liderazgo, esto me recuerda > el enfoque de Pinochet con el liderazgo, un estilo con el que sería > familiar. > > > En primer lugar, es manifiestamente corrupto cuando se elige para validar su > acción privilegiada y vincularlos a la respuesta del personal jurídico de la ICANN. > Ellos no te una "opinión jurídica" ofrecían. Ellos mismos declaran que son > No es competente para responder a la pregunta que se les. > > > Sin acceso a la cuestión [s] se pone al personal de ICANN Jurídico, el lodo de > la evidencia de los cuatro (4) movimientos que está posando supuestamente para resolver > mi movimiento me dice que probablemente tan confundido como los que usted puso en > la circulación en esta lista. > > > En primer lugar, usted no puede ofrecer nuevas propuestas de cuatro marcas como enmiendas a uno. Ese > es la corrupción bajo el color de la ignorancia y la evidencia clara de la violencia > en contra de las Reglas de Procedimiento de LACRALO, las reglas de orden para democrática > procedimientos, la razón y la gobernabilidad democrática. > > > En segundo lugar, esto: > "Si la moción de censura se revisa, se puede observar que la > solicitar que no se dirige al Presidente '* pidiéndole que hacer uso de > algún poder inherente a su cargo o que le confiere concretamente las normas > de procedimiento * ', pero pide' * Que la Asamblea General demostrar su > falta de confianza en el liderazgo de LACRALO y votación sobre esta moción * '". > > > Esta concepción no es sólo equivocado. Y lo que está en exhibición aquí parece > ser la noción de la ignorancia como virtud. > > > Aqui vamos de nuevo.Para ello será necesario que hagas un cambio mental de > pensando en el mundo físico a pensar en el mundo virtual. Me fácilmente > aceptar que así como es el caso de la elaboración de políticas, algunos de nosotros somos > mejor en esto que otros. Confío en que son capaces de seguir. > > > La primera cosa que debe ser entendido y aceptado es que cuando una reunión > de LACRALO, virtual o cara a cara, es en la sesión, hay un Presidente > oficial. > > > Una reunión LACRALO está en sesión cuando la Secretaría notifique. Esta > reunión fue una reunión especial y no me gusta la teleconferencia mensual > cita. Era una asamblea general. > > > Pidiendo el voto de todos los miembros y la emisión de credenciales para TODOS > miembros es su indicación de que una asamblea general de LACRALO está en > sesión. En este caso, la gran diferencia es que no es cara a cara > como, por ejemplo, el que está en Costa Rica. Es una asamblea general virtual. > > > Ahora vamos a identificar el oficial que preside en esta asamblea general virtual. > > > Piense de nuevo ahora por un poco en el proceso de que el general cara a cara > montaje en Costa Rica.Esperamos que la luz vendrá de aquí en adelante. > > > Recordemos el proceso allí. José Arce fue el oficial que preside. Tú podrías > literalmente verlo en acción. Fue allí ejecutando el deber legal de > el Presidente de LACRALO, lo que te gusta referirse como "el Presidente". Aquellas > deberes se definen en la Regla de Procedimiento. > > > Cambie su mente ahora a la asamblea general virtual. Esa asamblea es > convocada por la Secretaría. Fue llamado para decidir una moción puesto delante > por la Secretaría. Una vez que el conjunto se llama y aunque no se puede > "ver" a él, hay un oficial que preside en la silla. Sin embargo ese oficial > se identifica fácilmente. Es la persona que hizo la pregunta en el movimiento > esa fue la base para llamar a la asamblea. Es decir, la cuestión que estamos > supone que responder por el voto. > > > Volver al mensaje del Personal anunciando el voto. Usted se dará cuenta de que > Alberto Soto se levantó el movimiento y poner la cuestión en la votación. Qué > una coincidencia es esto! Si llega el caso, uno de Alberto Soto se volvió como > Presidente de LACRALO hace algún tiempo.Dado que el mandato no ha expirado > y esta asamblea no se le informó de lo contrario, es razonable suponer > ese mismo Alberto Soto sigue siendo Presidente de LACARLO. > > > En virtud de la Regla de Procedimiento, esa persona, uno Alberto Soto, tiene derechos específicos. > Él es el oficial que preside en esta asamblea general virtual. Encima de > sus obligaciones legales como presidente, él tiene el deber de diligencia. Uno > tal deber es cuidar de gestionar la reunión de una sociedad democrática > organización por medios democráticos. > > > Usted se refiere las Reglas de las Naciones Unidas de Procedimiento, pero lo que no parece que > apreciar bien su sustancia o más importante, su significado en el > contexto democrático. > > > Ahora vamos a ir a la gestión de una moción en la Asamblea General en > las mismas reglas que invocan. > > > El conjunto está en sesión. Hay un movimiento en el suelo que fue colocada > por el Presidente de LACRALO y Presidente. El movimiento hace una pregunta > para los que el voto va a ser utilizado para decidir la respuesta. > > > Los miembros tienen siete (7) días naturales antes de la votación virtual está cerrada. > Esos días se pueden usar para debatir virtualmente el movimiento. > > > En virtud de las Reglas de Orden de la Asamblea General, una pregunta referente al movimiento > bajo consideración se puede elevar en un punto de order.You no obtener esta > concepto correcto. Mi movimiento no es especial. > > > Las mociones se clasifican como de procedimiento o no de procedimiento. Mi propuesta era > procesal. > > > La moción de orden en una asamblea general cara a cara es sólo una cuestión de un > miembro de aumento a sus pies, ser reconocido por el Presidente > - Es decir, el Presidente considera que, literalmente, el miembro con sus propias > ojos - el derecho del miembro a hablar es reconocido por el Presidente > y se le da la palabra al dirigirse a la asamblea. > > > Cambie ahora a la asamblea general virtual. > > > En este contexto, planteamos una cuestión de orden por medios electrónicos, en esta ocasión, > un correo electrónico. Teniendo en cuenta lo que sé de la tendencia a alegar ignorancia, mi e-mail > mordazmente comenzado con el término 'éste es un punto de orden ".También hice > Asegúrese de indicar la razón detrás de mi cuestión de orden en un movimiento; era > directamente relacionada con el movimiento antes de la asamblea entonces, que es el voto > a elegir y para asentar un representante LACRALO al ALAC. > > > Mi movimiento detalló que la convocatoria de las elecciones era nula y sin efecto ya que un > representante en la persona de la lanza Hinds, el miembro de DevNet Guyana, > ya estaba seleccionado. Validé mi moción a la asamblea informando > la asamblea no puede nombrar a otro representante cuando ya era > nominado y seleccionado. > > > Es procesal y está cuestionando el procedimiento por el cual la propuesta de > la elección se colocó delante de la asamblea por el Presidente. > > > Cualquier elección que pretende elegir a alguien que no sea de Lance Hinds, cuyo > nominación estaba inmaculada y sin deterioro y NUNCA se negó a esta misma > Actualmente, es contraria a las normas y, por tanto, ilegal. Esta acción no es sino > otro evento en la medida de la corrupción en el LACRALO. Y usted señor, > no se puede negar razonablemente su connivencia activa. > > > Bajo las reglas de orden en las reuniones democráticas, mi cuestión de orden debe ser > procesados \u200b\u200bANTES el puesto a la asamblea por el Presidente. Ese > sería su moción pidiendo el voto ilegal. Mi punto de orden > contenía una moción solicitando un voto de no confianza en virtud de la > incompetencia del liderazgo para la causa. Esta solicitud se fundamenta en > los cargos que esbozan, el testimonio vivo de ser el voto ilegal. > > > La moción fue reconocido por el Presidente. Y sólo podemos > Suponemos que actuó en la instrucción del funcionario que preside cuando preguntaste > para la traducción oficial. > > > Si esto es lo contrario, aquí está tu oportunidad de declararlo. Porque si esto es > una operación de pícaro y en la parte superior de actuar fuera de las reglas, que tendrían > También socavado el Presidente en el ejercicio de sus funciones. > > > En otras palabras, se habría apoderado de la oficina en poder del Presidente del > LACRALO y poderes ejercidos que no son suyos para el ejercicio. Es > digamos, ejecutado un golpe, un golpe de Estado. > > > Al hacerlo, se habría violado las Reglas de Procedimiento de LACRALO, > ciertamente esta vez sin violencia, socava la oficina de la Presidencia > de LACRALO y se coloca el Presidente de LACRALO en una posición de descrédito. > > > Si esto es lo que sucedió sin protesta del funcionario que preside, el > Presidente de LACRALO podría entonces ser acusado razonablemente de abandonar su puesto > y contribuir a su propio descrédito. > > > En cualquier caso, el resultado es una organización corrupta, sobornado en este > Estado por actos de corrupción. > > > Cuando la votación se cierra y el recuento se hace ya menos que se indique lo contrario, > la asamblea general termina. > > > Así que el intento de elevar a cuatro (4) propuestas como enmiendas a mi solo movimiento > es como Dev señaló, un intento de frustrar mi solo movimiento. Pero mas > importante, una asamblea general LACRALO no está en sesión permanente. Y > ya que la asamblea general no es perpetuo, su respuesta no es demasiado > tarde y lamentablemente fuera de lugar. Pero, por definición, una práctica corrupta. > > > Supongamos que ahora acepta lo que es un movimiento y el contexto en el cual la moción > se planteó, estaríamos obligados a juzgar esto, su comportamiento, como > incorregible. > > > La acusación de corrupción se fundamenta. > > > Amablemente, > Ritz-Carlton Samuels > > > ============================== > Carlton Un Samuels > Móvil: 876-818-1799 > * Estrategia, Planeación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * > ============================= > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/309b02f4f1.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Your response to member TTCS - Trinidad and Tobago - Dev Anand Teelucksingh
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Oct. 13, 2015

Oct. 13, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Your response to member TTCS - Trinidad and Tobago - Dev Anand Teelucksingh From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Lord Carlton, Humberto contestun only received strong offense. The comment period cerrel October 8 at 2300 UTC. Cheers Alberto Soto -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [Mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On behalf of carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Posted on: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 3:56 pm To: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [lac-discuss-en] His response to member TTCS - Trinidad and Tobago - Dev Anand Teelucksingh [[Translated text (en -> en) -]] Subject: Your response to member TTCS - Trinidad and Tobago - Dev Anand Teelucksingh From: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Humberto: Dev hope will respond in due course, but I'm very worried that rather than admit error and change, which has doubled down on Asmismo methods to break free of the responsibility for this debacle last LACRALO. Show https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw In another context, purely on leadership style, that reminds me Pinochet's approach to leadership, a style that will family. First, it is manifestly corrupt when you choose to validate its action privileged and linked to the response of the staff jurdico ICANN. They will not get a "opinin jurdica" giving by. Themselves They declare that they are not competent to answer the question to them. Without access to cuestin [s] is set to ICANN staff jurdico, mud evidence of four (4) movements estposando supposedly to solve my move tells me that probably as He confused as you put into the circulation in this list. First, you can not offer new proposals for four brands as amendments to one. That is corruption under color of ignorance and clear evidence of violence against the Rules of Procedure LACRALO, the rules of order for democratic procedures, razny the democratic governance. Secondly, this: "If censorship mocin is reviewed, it can be seen that request that the President '* is not directed to use pidindole sb power inherent in his office or specifically gives him the rules * procedure 'but ask' * That the General Assembly demonstrate its lack of confidence in the leadership ballot LACRALO and this mocin * '". This conception is not only wrong. And who are here exhibicin It seems to be the notion of ignorance as a virtue. Here we go nuevo.Para sernecesario you do this mental change thinking about the physical world to the virtual world think. I easily ascomo accept the case of working of policies, some of we are better at this than others. Confo they are able to follow. The first thing that must be understood and accepted is that when a meeting LACRALO, virtual or face to face, it is in session, there is a President officer. A meeting LACRALO ARE session when the Secretariat notified. Is meeting was a special meeting and I hate the monthly teleconference appointment. It was a general meeting. Asking the vote of all members and the issuance of credentials ALL members is your indication that a general meeting of LACRALO ARE session. In this case, the big difference is that it is not face to face as, for example, who are Costa Rica. It is a general assembly virtual. Now let's identify the presiding officer in the General Assembly virtual. Think back now for a little in the process that the general face expensive Costa Rica.Esperamos mounting vendrde aquen light on. Remember the all process. JosArce was the presiding officer. T you can literally see it in action. It was a legal duty allejecutando LACRALO President, what you like to refer to as "the President. "Those duties are defined in the Rule of Procedure. Change your mind now to virtual general assembly. That assembly is convened by the Secretariat. He was called to decide a motion as in front by the Secretariat. Once the set is called and although it can not be "See" l, there is a presiding officer in the chair. Nevertheless that officer It is easily identified. It's the person who asked the question in the motion that was the basis for calling the meeting. That is, the cuestin that we are It supposed to answer for the vote. Back to Personal message announcing the vote. You darcuenta of than Alberto Soto movement cuestin levantel and put in the ballot. Qu is this a coincidence!As it happens, one of Alberto Soto volvitbNL> as President of LACRALO ago sb tiempo.Dado the term has not expired and this assembly will not informde Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that same Alberto Soto remains President of LACARLO. Under the Rule of Procedure, that person, one Alberto Soto, YOU SPECIFIC has rights. He is the presiding officer in this virtual general assembly. On top of their legal obligations as president, l have the duty of care. One this duty is to take care of managing the meeting of a democratic society means for democrticos organization. You mean the UN Rules of Procedure, but it does not seem that WHO fully appreciate its important substance, its meaning in the democratic context. Now let's go to the management of a motion at the General Assembly They are invoking the same rules. ARE assembly session. There is a motion on the floor that was placed by LACRALO President and President. The motion asks a question for which the vote will be used to decide the answer. Members have seven (7) calendar das before the virtual ballot estcerrada. These days can be used to virtually discuss the motion. Under the Rules of Order of the General Assembly, a question concerning movements Low consideracin can raise a point of not getting this order.You concept correct. My movement is not special. The motions are classified as procedural or non-procedural. My proposal was procedural. The mocin order at a general meeting face to face is just a matter of a increase member at his feet, be recognized by the President - I mean, the President believes that, literally, the member with their own eyes - the right of Member to speak is recognized by the President and given the floor to address the assembly. Switch to the virtual general assembly. In this context, we raise a question of order by electronic means, on this occasion, an electronic mail. Considering what the trend sde plead ignorance, my e-mail scathingly started with the term 'his is a point of order "I .Tambin Be sure to indicate the reason behind my question of order in a motion; I was directly related to the motion before the meeting then, that is the vote to choose and to set his LACRALO Representative to ALAC. My movement detallque the call of the election was null and void effect since a representative in the person of the spear Hinds, Guyana DevNet member, he was selected. Validmi informing the assembly mocina the assembly can not appoint another representative when it was nominated and selected. It is procedural and estcuestionando the process by which the proposal from the choice is colocdelante Assembly by the President. Any choice that aims to choose someone other than Lance Hinds, whose nomination was immaculate and without deterioration and never herself nega Currently, it is contrary to the rules and, therefore, illegal. This action does not is but other event as far corruption in the LACRALO. And you sir, You can not reasonably deny their active collusion. Under the rules of order at meetings democrticas, my question of order must be processed \\ u200b \\ u200bANTES the post to the Assembly by the President. That mocin will be asking their illegal vote. My point of order Contain a motion calling for a vote of no confidence under incompetence of leadership for the cause. This request is based on outlining the charges, the living testimony of being illegal vote. The mocin was recognized by the President. And we can only We assume that act out the instructions of the presiding officer when Asked for official translation. If this is the opposite, aquesttu opportunity to declare. Because if this is an operation of pcaro and on top of acting outside the rules, which will have It also undermined the President in the exercise of their functions. In other words, it will have taken office held by President of LACRALO and powers exercised that are not theirs to exercise. Is say, a stroke, a coup. In doing so, it has violated the Rules of Procedure of LACRALO, certainly this time without violence, undermines the office of the Presidency LACRALO LACRALO President and placed in a position of I descrdito. If this is what sucedisin protest presiding officer, the President of LACRALO could then reasonably be accused of leaving office and contribute to their own descrdito. In any case, the result is a corrupt organization, bribed in East State for acts of corruption. When the ballot is closed and the count is done and unless specified otherwise, the General Assembly ends. Asque trying to lift the four (4) proposals as amendments to my one movement Dev is like sealun attempt to thwart my single movement. But more important LACRALO general assembly session ARE NOT permanent. Y because the General Assembly is not perpetual, your answer is not too late and sadly misplaced. But, by definition, a practical corrupt. Suppose now accept what is a movement and the context in which mocin planteestaramos is required to judge this, their behavior, as incorrigible. The accusation of corruption is based. Kindly, Ritz-Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 * Strategy Planning on, Government, evaluation and delivery * ============================= [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/3c24965d7e.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] ??????????? Q = utf-8 3A_LACRALO_Primera_Votaci VOTO_ANUNCIO = = = utf-8 b w4PCs24gZGUgbGEgbW9jacODwrNuIGRlIGNlbnN1cmEgLyBQcmltZXIg = q = utf-8 voto_de_LACRALO_Sobre_la_moci = C3 = 83 = C2 = B3n_de_censura =
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Oct. 10, 2015

Oct. 10, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re:??????????? Q = utf-8 3A_LACRALO_Primera_Votaci VOTO_ANUNCIO = = = utf-8 b w4PCs24gZGUgbGEgbW9jacODwrNuIGRlIGNlbnN1cmEgLyBQcmltZXIg = q = utf-8 voto_de_LACRALO_Sobre_la_moci = C3 = 83 = C2 = B3n_de_censura = From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Juan Manuel to further clarify, although it is in previous clarifications. This motion should be rejected for not being covered by our regulations, the ALAC or ICANN. Just read it, does not cite any article in any standard. But try to give course to clear our names so many wrongs and injuries that caused serious injury and institutional staff Thus we find a flat on the UN regulations and in which the articles quoted, including the relevant items of our rules. It is a concatenated solution, as was explained. In the first vote, not because there is no competition in LACRALO, ie there is no article in any rule that permits treatment of the motion The SI allows the process to continue with the modification of requirements for submission and approval, the regulation of any part of the world, including the United Nations, and also in the removal project authorities ICANN, still under discussion. All require the same. Best regards Alberto Soto From: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-es-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] In the name of Humberto Carrasco Posted on: Saturday, October 10, 2015 4:19 a.m. To: Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> CC: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] VOTE AD: First LACRALO moción Votación of censorship / First LACRALO vote of censure on the moción Dear Juan Manuel, The vote contains the following question: QUESTION: Do you think that LACRALO is competent to vote on the motion of censure? If you vote by SI alternative, it is understood that LACRALO has jurisdiction to hear the motion of censure and therefore should continue processing. If you vote for the NO option, it is understood that LACRALO lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion and the motion of censure may not be voted on by the community. Cheers 10/10/2015 5:00 GMT + 01: 00 Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com <mailto:jumaropi@yahoo.com> >: I do not understand why if the motion is voted no, is considered rejected and if you vote yes, is considered ignored. It is not consistent. Just my view on the matter in an open vote. Sent from my Huawei Mobile staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > > [[- Translated text (en -> en) -]] > > Subject: VOTE NOTICE: LACRALO mocin First Voting of censorship / First LACRALO vote of censure on the mocin > From: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > > [ES] > > > Dear All, > > > According to the instruction we published on the next few steps in relation to the mocin of > Trust < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> > Secretariat is pleased to announce the start of the first ballot with respect > Mocin to censure proposed by Carlton Samuels September 5, > 2015. This ballot be open from 9 October 2015 at 23:00 UTC October 16 > 2015 at 23:00 UTC. > > > Voting process is governed by the rules 12, 19 and 20 LACRALO > RP.As for the proposed resolution, the next question to be > Asked in the first ballot: > > > *** > QUESTION: Do you think that LACRALO is competent to vote a motion of > Trust? > 1. S, the mocin censorship should go ahead. > 2. No, censorship mocin be ignored. > *** > Read the mocin censorship here: > Http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/01343 > 2.html > <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/013 > 432.html> For more information about the next few steps in relation to the movement of > Without trust: https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw > > > > > [ES] > > > Hi everyone, > > > According to the instructions regarding the > < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> > Censorship < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> > LACRALO announce the start of the First Vote with relacina the Mocin of > Censorship Proposal for Carlton Samuels on 05 September 2015. This > Estarabierto votes from the October 9, 2015 23:00 UTC Up to 16 > October 2015 at 23:00 UTC. > > > The voting process estargobernado by Rules 12, 19 and 20 of the > LACRALO Rules of Procedure. With relacina the resolution proposal, > The following is the question First Vote: > > > *** > QUESTION: You believe LACRALO paragraph shall have the mocin of Competition Voting > Censorship? > 1. Yes, censorship mocin Dbe procedure. > 2. No, censorship mocin Dbe be ignored. > *** > Read the Mocin censorship here: > Http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/2015-September/02939 > 8.html > The next few steps in relation to the mocin censorship: > https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw > > > Regards, > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Terri Agnew > ICANN staff policy in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann <http://www.facebook.com/icann> < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > AtLarge < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > Twitter: @ < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> > < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> > > > > > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/11bc0e9699.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] ??????????? Q = utf-8 3A_LACRALO_Primera_Votaci VOTO_ANUNCIO = = = utf-8 b w4PCs24gZGUgbGEgbW9jacODwrNuIGRlIGNlbnN1cmEgLyBQcmltZXIg = q = utf-8 voto_de_LACRALO_Sobre_la_moci = C3 = 83 = C2 = B3n_de_censura =
by hcarrascob＠gmail.com Oct. 10, 2015

Oct. 10, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re:??????????? Q = utf-8 3A_LACRALO_Primera_Votaci VOTO_ANUNCIO = = = utf-8 b w4PCs24gZGUgbGEgbW9jacODwrNuIGRlIGNlbnN1cmEgLyBQcmltZXIg = q = utf-8 voto_de_LACRALO_Sobre_la_moci = C3 = 83 = C2 = B3n_de_censura = From: hcarrascob(a)gmail.com Dear Juan Manuel, The vote contains the following question: * * QUESTION: Do you think that LACRALO is competent to vote on the motion censorship? If you vote for the alternative * IF *, it is understood that LACRALO is competent to meet the censure motion and therefore should continue processing. If you vote for option * NO, * it is understood that lacks LACRALO jurisdiction of the censure motion and this motion can not be voted by the community. Cheers 10/10/2015 5:00 GMT + 01: 00 Juan Manuel Rojas <jumaropi(a)yahoo.com> : > No entiendo por qué si la moción se vota no, se considera rechazada y si > se vota sí, se considera ignorada. > > No es coherente. > Sólo mi punto de vista al respecto de una votación abierta. > > Sent from my Huawei Mobile > > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org wrote: > > > > >[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] > > > >Asunto: VOTO ANUNCIO: LACRALO Primera Votaci��n de la moci��n de censura > / Primer voto de LACRALO Sobre la moci��n de censura > >De: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > >[ES] > > > > > >Queridos todos, > > > > > >De acuerdo con la instrucci��n publicada sobre los pr��ximos pasos en > relaci��n con la moci��n de > >Confianza < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> > >Secretar��a se complace en anunciar el inicio de la primera votaci��n con > respecto > >a la moci��n de censura propuesta por Carlton Samuels el 5 de septiembre, > >2015. Esta votaci��n estar�� abierta desde el 09 de octubre 2015 23:00 > UTC al 16 de octubre > >2015 a las 23:00 UTC. > > > > > >El proceso de votaci��n se regir�� por las reglas 12, 19 y 20 de LACRALO > de > >RP. En cuanto a la propuesta de resoluci��n, la siguiente pregunta ser�� > >pregunt�� en la primera votaci��n: > > > > > >*** > >PREGUNTA: ��Cree usted que LACRALO es competente para votar una moci��n de > >confianza? > >1. S��, la moci��n de censura debe seguir adelante. > >2. No, la moci��n de censura debe ser ignorada. > >*** > >Lea la moci��n de censura aqu��: > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/01343 > >2.html > >< > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/013 > >432.html> Para obtener m��s informaci��n acerca de los pr��ximos pasos en > relaci��n con el movimiento de > >Sin confianza: https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw > > > > > > > > > >[ES] > > > > > >Hola a todos, > > > > > >De Acuerdo a las INSTRUCCIONES con relacion a los > >< https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> > >Censura < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> > >de LACRALO Anuncian el inicio del Primer Voto con relacina la Mocin de > >Censura Propuesta por Carlton Samuels el 05 de Setiembre del 2015. Este > >voto estarabierto desde el 09 de Octubre del 2015 23:00 UTC Hasta el 16 de > >Octubre del 2015 a las 23:00 UTC. > > > > > >El Proceso de voto estargobernado por Las reglas 12, 19, y 20 de las > >Reglas de Procedimiento de LACRALO. Con relacina la resolucin Propuesta, > >La siguiente es la PREGUNTA del Primer voto: > > > > > >*** > >PREGUNTA: Usted cree Que LACRALO Tiene Competencia p��rrafo Votar la > mocin de > >censura? > >1. Si, la mocin de censura D��be procedure. > >2. No, la mocin de censura Ser D��be ignorada. > >*** > >Leer la Mocin de censura aqu: > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/2015-September/02939 > >8.html > >Los prximos Pasos en relacin con la mocin de censura: > >https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw > > > > > >Saludos, > > > > > >Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > >Peregrine y Terri Agnew > >El personal de ICANN pol��tica en apoyo de ALAC > >E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge > > > >AtLarge < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > >Twitter: @ < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> > >< https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8c52217c30.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] ??????? Q = iso-8859-1 3A_LACRALO_Primera_V VOTO_ANUNCIO = = = iso-8859-1 Otaci q = C3 = C3 = B3n_de_censura B3n_de_la_moci = _ / _ Primer_voto_de = = iso-8859-1??? q? _LACRALO_Sobre_la_moci B3n_de_censura = C3 =? =
by jumaropi＠yahoo.com Oct. 10, 2015

Oct. 10, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re:??????? Q = iso-8859-1 3A_LACRALO_Primera_V VOTO_ANUNCIO = = = iso-8859-1 Otaci q = C3 = C3 = B3n_de_censura B3n_de_la_moci = _ / _ Primer_voto_de = = iso-8859-1??? q? _LACRALO_Sobre_la_moci B3n_de_censura = C3 =? = From: jumaropi(a)yahoo.com I do not understand why if the motion is voted no, is considered rejected and if you vote yes, is considered ignored. It is not consistent. Just my view on the matter in an open vote. Sent from my Huawei Mobile staff(a)atlarge.icann.org wrote: > > [[- Translated text (en -> en) -]] > > Subject: VOTE NOTICE: LACRALO mocin First Voting of censorship / First LACRALO vote of censure on the mocin > From: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > [ES] > > > Dear All, > > > According to the instruction we published on the next few steps in relation to the mocin of > Trust < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> > Secretariat is pleased to announce the start of the first ballot with respect > Mocin to censure proposed by Carlton Samuels September 5, > 2015. This ballot be open from 9 October 2015 at 23:00 UTC October 16 > 2015 at 23:00 UTC. > > > Voting process is governed by the rules 12, 19 and 20 LACRALO > RP.As for the proposed resolution, the next question to be > Asked in the first ballot: > > > *** > QUESTION: Do you think that LACRALO is competent to vote a motion of > Trust? > 1. S, the mocin censorship should go ahead. > 2. No, censorship mocin be ignored. > *** > Read the mocin censorship here: > Http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/01343 > 2.html > <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/013 > 432.html> For more information about the next few steps in relation to the movement of > Without trust: https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw > > > > > [ES] > > > Hi everyone, > > > According to the instructions regarding the > < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> > Censorship < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> > LACRALO announce the start of the First Vote with relacina the Mocin of > Censorship Proposal for Carlton Samuels on 05 September 2015. This > Estarabierto votes from the October 9, 2015 23:00 UTC Up to 16 > October 2015 at 23:00 UTC. > > > The voting process estargobernado by Rules 12, 19 and 20 of the > LACRALO Rules of Procedure. With relacina the resolution proposal, > The following is the question First Vote: > > > *** > QUESTION: You believe LACRALO paragraph shall have the mocin of Competition Voting > Censorship? > 1. Yes, censorship mocin Dbe procedure. > 2. No, censorship mocin Dbe be ignored. > *** > Read the Mocin censorship here: > Http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/2015-September/02939 > 8.html > The next few steps in relation to the mocin censorship: > https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw > > > Regards, > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Terri Agnew > ICANN staff policy in support of ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > AtLarge < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> > Twitter: @ < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> > < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> > > > > > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/92a6852795.html --]]

1 0

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: LACRALO First Vote on the Motion of No Confidence / First LACRALO vote on the censure motion
by staff＠atlarge.icann.org Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: LACRALO First Vote on the Motion of No Confidence / First LACRALO vote on the censure motion From: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org [IN] Dear All, As per instruction published on the Next Steps Regarding the Motion of No Confidence < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> Secretariat would like to announce the start of the First Vote With regard to the Proposed Motion of No Confidence by Carlton Samuels on September 5, 2015. This vote will be open from 09 October 2015 to 16 October 23:00 UTC 2015 at 23:00 UTC. The voting process Shall Be Governed by rules 12, 19 and 20 of LACRALO's RoP. Concerning the Proposed resolution, the following question will be Asked in the First Vote: *** QUESTION: Do you believe LACRALO That is competent to vote a motion of no confidence? 1. Yes, the motion of no confidence must move forward. 2. No, the motion of no confidence must be ignored. *** Read the Motion of No Confidence here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/01343 2.html <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/013 432.html> For more information about the Next Steps Regarding the Motion of No Confidence: https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw [IS] Hello everyone, According to the instructions in relation to the < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> Censorship < https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> LACRALO announce the start of the First Vote with relacina the Mocin of Carlton Samuels censorship proposal on 05 September 2015. This I vote estarabierto since October 9, 2015 23:00 UTC until 16 October 2015 at 23:00 UTC. The voting process estargobernado under rules 12, 19, and 20 of the Rules of Procedure of LACRALO. With relacina the resolution proposal, The following is the question of the First Vote: *** QUESTION: You believe that LACRALO is competent to vote on the mocin of censorship? 1. If the mocin censorship should proceed. 2. No, the censorship mocin be ignored. *** Read Mocin censorship here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/2015-September/02939 8.html The next few steps in relation to the mocin censorship: https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> AtLarge < https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @ < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> < https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2ce39d57d3.html --]]

1 0

VOTE ANNOUNCEMENT: LACRALO First Vote on the Motion of No Confidence / Primer voto de LACRALO sobre la mocion de censura
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

[EN] Dear All, As per instruction published on the Next Steps regarding the Motion of No Confidence <https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> , LACRALO¹s Chair and Secretariat would like to announce the start of the First Vote with regard to the Motion of No Confidence proposed by Carlton Samuels on September 5, 2015. This vote will be open from 09 October 2015 23:00 UTC to 16 October 2015 at 23:00 UTC. The voting process shall be governed by rules 12, 19 and 20 of LACRALO's RoP. Concerning the proposed resolution, the following question will be asked in the First Vote: *** QUESTION: Do you believe that LACRALO is competent to vote a motion of no confidence? 1. Yes, the motion of no confidence must move forward. 2. No, the motion of no confidence must be ignored. *** Read the Motion of No Confidence here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/01343 2.html <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/013 432.html> For more information about the Next Steps regarding the Motion of No Confidence: https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw [ES] Hola a todos, De acuerdo a las instrucciones con relacion a los <https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> proximos pasos acerca de la Mocion de Censura <https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw> , el Presidente y Secretario de LACRALO anuncian el inicio del Primer Voto con relación a la Moción de Censura propuesta por Carlton Samuels el 05 de Setiembre del 2015. Este voto estará abierto desde el 09 de Octubre del 2015 23:00 UTC hasta el 16 de Octubre del 2015 a las 23:00 UTC. El proceso de voto estará gobernado por las reglas 12, 19, y 20 de las Reglas de Procedimiento de LACRALO. Con relación a la resolución propuesta, la siguiente es la pregunta del Primer voto: *** PREGUNTA: ¿Usted cree que LACRALO tiene competencia para votar la moción de censura? 1. Si, la moción de censura debe proceder. 2. No, the moción de censura debe ser ignorada. *** Leer la Moción de censura aquí: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-es/2015-September/02939 8.html Los próximos pasos en relación con la moción de censura: https://community.icann.org/x/C5lYAw Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)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>

1 0

On civil society and end user
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: On civil society and end user From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Dear, I just incorporate this information in the wiki. https://community.icann.org/display/LACRALO/SOCIEDAD+CIVIL+-+CIVIL+SOCIETY Although we do not agrupemos, some people do in ICANN. Perhaps deberamos discuss where we stand now, if you really user this does not end well represented. And as the transition estarluego IANA. I remember something that citvarias times in various meetings, and LACRALO meettings many in ALAC and ICANN. When the CEO of ICANN was the conformation of the ICG report, Sebastien word and Bacholet pidila said end users were not represented. The CEO will contesttbNL> ermos all end users. And I say no, that is not the asdesde viewpoint of safeguarding the interests of the end user. The president, a legislature, a minister, a service provider Internet, the president of a chamber to which they belong, and we can continue They naming, they are end users. But when making decisions that affect end users in decision MSWI qudireccin? By interests its industry or to the interests of the end user? As quedarel end user after the IANA transition? Deberamos see Model community as sole member explicLen us a monthly meeting. Efforts were being made in the Working Group Intercommunity (CCWG) on Liability. If someone wants to remember, that link Short of submission: https://goo.gl/XWcpNc I ask you please to overturn their views on the wiki for all we can follow up. Best regards Alberto Soto Here is a summary: Recommendation 5 ATLAS II ICANN should consider how best to ensure that users finals will be held in the center of the process of accountability in all aspects relating to the transition of administration of the IANA function. Recipients ICANN Board; ICANN Staff; ICANN Community Assigned to: ICANN IANA Transition & Accountability Summary so far Could feed into ICANN accountability process and the work of At-Large IANA WG issues. 09 Sep 2015: It is a Very Important recommendation. Are we pushing enough to Strengthen the position of the end users (this Concerns the question of civil society and the role of ALAC / At-Large)? It Seems That We Have not pushed CCWG-Accountability to fully address questions and Those Consider the position of end users. 16 Sep 2015: The ALAC / At-Large Have Been Advocating for end users to balance the power of other interested parties, and will continue to do so. We are not in the position to say That the end user rights are more Important than other rights. Should the ALAC advocate That the end users' trump other Concerns Concerns? Yes, in some cases, users Should Take dominance; but not all the time. The needs of users May not be so much different from the needs of other parties. For example, IANA stewardship Regarding transition, there is almost 100% overlap Between the interests of registries and the interests of users in terms of the operational aspect of IANA functions. Shall Assignees Evaluate the implementation of pending recommendation esta the outcome (ie end report) of the CCWG-Accountability. 22 Sep 2015: We can not say That the recommendation has Already Been Implemented. End users are at the heart of the accountability process, but Have Limited knowledge and influence in the process. Some parts of the discussions at some Working Group: I think with this we will have many comments. The model precisely It requires balancing the concerns or interests. there is no doubt that users are more dominant than others. Between users estn many parts of the community and, to be frank, many of these issues I do not think that the views of end-users are distinct from the visions of the other parties. This whole issue of IANA, the standards we are looking for, there seems to be the same overlay of interests with the interests records users. Both want the root area and we want to work make the necessary changes to it. There are not necessarily many differences between them in operational terms. We are in a position the same as we are with the GNSO? All of these things have to be balanced. Hear someone say before the esttotalmente not balanced together sometimes. The model of the community, CCWG have the opportunity to achieve this balance? We are not in position to assert our rights more than others.He ARE the center of public interest interest of ICANN. I think this is a work in progress. Leesto When I first gave me the impresino it may be that the with this group has the impression of being an indication of a job does not ICANN completely. We are always thinking about the user's interests and acestamos pidindole the board that a balance is achieved between the existing interests. I think that's something we're already doing that and It has been done. --- Avast antivirus software has analyzed this e-mail for viruses. https://www.avast.com/antivirus [[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/dbfb564d10.html --]]

1 0