Hi Vanda: I had another look at Jose's text after I read your response. Because like you, I believe that using national laws to determine LACRALO's business would be very problematic. This is why we have and need the RoP as guide. This aside, I now believe Jose's declaration entirely rational. It is also defensible. What distracts is that in his zeal to be thorough, Jose went into overdrive and 'over think', quoting this national law and that. Principles are the driving factors here. The declaration is supportable if you consider the practical understanding of being 'representative' of end users in a certain physical space and how that connects to where you live day-to-day. If one cannot interact readily with constituents in all kinds of ways day-to-day, you can hardly be said to be 'representing' them. Here I am making specific reference to the lectures on the meaning of democracy and representation of end users on this list, something I know is hardly understood, even by the lecturers. It is a similar situation with language that some of our Caribbean colleagues in Barbados has maintained for years. I confess I was uncomfortable with this view but I have now come to agree it is entirely practical. The representative's tenure is 2 years from October 2012; ending latest December 2014. Humberto is admitted and pursuing a full time face-to-face doctoral degree that will take him beyond December 2014 to acquire. Jose has pointed out Humberto is required by his university rules to be resident in Scotland for the duration of his study. As evidence by his acceptance for study, Humberto has agreed to this restriction. Jose has interpreted 'resident' in context to mean 'live day-to-day'. So if you follow Jose's reasoning, Humberto now lives day-to-day in Scotland. And for the period in which he would serve if he's elected, he would be living day-to-day in Scotland. Humberto has not disavowed the meaning of or intent of his university requirement for him to be 'resident' in Scotland for duration. Nor has he denied living now day-to-day in Scotland. What Humberto has done is to refute Jose's interpretation of the ordinary meaning of the word 'resident' and what it means to be 'representative' of end users in a defined geographic space. Reasonable people can disagree. Which is why LACRALO has a mechanism to challenge these disagreements. Warmest regards, - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:40 PM, <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: RES: Re: Final Consideration - Member of ALAC Election (Part 2) From: vanda@uol.com.br
Well, I believe can not be driven by LACRALO Chilean law or other national Laws! If the person has citizenship and is temporarily leaving in another country I see no reason to not allow the person to Participate. Even regarding regional balance in ICANN, citizenship is the MOST Combined With The critical issue to get another That demand " citizenship "Must the person in another country comprove leaving for more than 5 years! So people, lets be reasonable. If we will depend on Each country law, to Any decision, we will end With Each one voting based on ITS own laws. It from my view is crazy. Vanda