[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re:??????? Q = utf-8 El_movimiento_de_las_elecciones_ = 2E = 2E = = q = utf-8 2E_ = EF = BF = BDHa_fallado_en_pasar = 2E = From: hcarrascob@gmail.com Dear Jacqueline, Sorry for the delay. This is because I try to write in Spanish and English for the two lists can understand clearly. This takes me several hours. The standard rule 12.2 states: 12.2 In accordance with the provisions of Rules 6.2 and 16, Resolutions are decided by a majority of Large Structures present and voting; for the purposes of these Rules, the expression "Large Structures present and voting" shall mean the Large Structures casting an affirmative or negative vote. At Large Structures abstain from voting shall be deemed them as if they had not voted. The law covers three situations: 1. Scope that a structure emits positive feedback 2. Scope that a structure of casting a negative vote 3. That a range structure abstains from voting. An example covering these three situations would be: Is you. Agree that XXXX is president? 1. IF 2. NO If a structure Scope vote yes, is issuing an affirmative vote. If the structure is NOT Scope vote by casting a negative vote. If the structure does nothing Scope, she is abstaining from voting. Here perfectly they meet the assumptions of the standard. However, in the situation in question the choice of the Member ALAC situation is different and the rule does not fit properly. The question asked was: * * QUESTION: Who do you choose to be representative of LACRALO to ALAC for a period of two years starting at the ICANN meeting October 2015? Please choose a candidate from the list below (in alphabetical order) or abstain: * Harold Arcos * Juan Manuel Rojas * Abstain The vote given in favor of Harold Arcos or Juan Manuel Rojas is a affirmative vote. The vote by abstention option is a negative vote. Who did nothing, abstained from voting. Therefore, the results are delivered correctly. Cheers On 16/09/2015 at 5:31, jam@jacquelinemorris.com wrote:
[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]
Asunto: El movimiento de las elecciones ... ¿Ha fallado en pasar. De: jam@jacquelinemorris.com
Estimados colegas He pensado profundamente sobre esto, volvió a leer los documentos de trabajo y finales de 2006 y 2007, y han llegado a algunas conclusiones muy determinados.
La Secretaría es la posición en las que la responsabilidad última de estos cálculos reside. El hecho de que no hemos sabido nada de Humberto sobre este tema es preocupante. El personal está disponible para ayudar a la Secretaría y Presidente, pero no puede asumir la responsabilidad de los miembros, ya que No son los que hemos votado para ocupar tal puesto.
También creo que las consecuencias del cálculo correcto de los votos debe ser explicado de manera que no haya confusión.
Teniendo en cuenta la intención muy clara de la regla, es obvio que como una consecuencia de cualquier movimiento (incluyendo propuestas de las elecciones) no se puede pasar si el voto ponderado por los representantes de ELA que se abstienen o no voten es más de 50%.
Por lo tanto, creo que la moción para elegir a un representante ALAC ha fallado. Espero que los próximos pasos, y espero que estos, a diferencia de la anterior, se adherirá a la letra y el espíritu del Reglamento de la LACRALO en su redacción y debidamente aprobado.
Jacqueline A. Morris La tecnología debe ser como el oxígeno: Ubicuo, necesario, invisible y Gratis. (después de que Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> ) El Lun, 14 de septiembre 2015 a las 7:31 de la tarde, Jacqueline Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com
wrote: Hi Alberto I would like to insert some factual historical information into this discussion.
The concern when developing the RoP was to ensure that a minority of the organisation could not agree to motions without a majority present and voting. Hence, the rule for a virtual assembly is that every ALS is considered to be present as each is issued voting credentials. And so a motion cannot be carried on a minority voting on a motion if the majority abstains or don't vote.
I don't know when the change was made, but it is counter to the established and documented process. I believe if such a fundamental change were to be made to the established voting process, it should have been discussed and voted upon by the membership. It may be that the Big Pulse system was wrongly programmed to calculate, but it certainly should have been double checked!
Sincerely
Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann <http://twitter.com/chrislehmann> )
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:21 PM, <asoto@ibero-americano.org> wrote:
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: The Numbers are Plain Wrong. From: asoto@ibero-americano.org
Lord Samuels, a continuation transcribe Rule 12.2 of the Common Rules LACRALO Procedure: In accordance with the provisions of the Rules 6.2 and 16, decisions shall be by a majority of decidirn Large Structures present and voting; for the purposes of these Rules, the expression Large Structures present vote will refer the Large Structures casting an affirmative or negative vote. At Large Structures refrain from voting if they considerarcomo they would not have voted.
In English: 12.2 Subject to the Provisions of Rules 6.2 and 16, decisions Shall be taken by a majority of the At Large Structures present and voting; for the purpose of the present Rules, the expression "At Large Structures present and voting "shall mean At Large Structures casting an affirmative or negative vote.At Large Structures abstaining from voting Shall Be Regarded Having Voted as not.
As see, you have to count the number of ALS present, it is, they have cast their vote, whatever its option. We understand that Large structures who voted for the abstention option, have issued one vote, which even can be considered negative. Positive votes are those who go sb candidate.
The rule saying abstaining, we understand that concern Scope those structures that have not No single act. In simple terms did not vote for any option.
The Big Push system is automatic, no intervention of any person. The percentage taken are correct.
Years ago that the system works the same way, and has never been observed or rejected.
Made the clarification, I ask again please not to issue grievances and insults on the list.
If you observe or perform a critical, please, just doing hgalo s reference to the fact in citing the article and reference standard.
Cheers
Alberto Soto
--- Avast antivirus software has analyzed this e-mail for viruses. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/0dcd5b0477.html --]]