Hi Carlton, You are stepping on stones which you don’t understand. The words “among other things” do not mean that he can do anything, because right after these words is a list, as you said, that defines the nature of his role. You cannot go outside these descriptions and say that the Chair has executive authority. You cannot use these words to say that he can do something else outside this description. Of course the listing is not exhaustive but if you want to add anything it must be along those lines. The rule shuts him off from any executive authority. Check your lawyers. As chair, the only duty he has is to uphold the rules of debate and discussion and not all the rules of LACRALO. He may call attention to rules such as this domicile rule but it is for the assembly to properly interpret and decide on any rule, not the chair. If the rule wanted him to have executive authority, this should have been spelt out in the genre in the list, in the same way that it is spelt out for the Secretariat. For example, the rule did not say that he can make decisions outside of chairing meetings. They did not say that he can make any decisions as it relates to LACRALO positions. The rules describe the chair as an emissary and hence in that rule, he only has two roles, one as chair and the other as emissary or ambassador. he can write all the heads of state in the world and tell them about LACRALO. He can link LACRALO to whatever conversations and discussion he thinks will benefit LACRALO. He can chair meetings on a pin head, but he can’t go outside this role and remain within the rules. Whatever you substitute “among other things” with, the equation is still the same. The list defines the limits of the Chair. In law this is called the Eiusdem Generis rule. If this were not so, it means that he can do anything and for sure that is not what the rules intended. Can he open a LACRALO shop and run it on his own? Can he expel a member? Can he penalise a member? None of these are of the same genre as the list. The next problem that I have with all the rules of ICANN is that they are not clear and written in a manner that will allow a debacle like this to happen. Here is a typical text book quote on interpretation: “It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted so as to be internally consistent. A particular section of the statute shall not be divorced from the rest of the act. The ejusdem generis (Latin for "of the same kind") rule applies to resolve the problem of giving meaning to groups of words where one of the words is ambiguous or inherently unclear. The rule results that where "general words follow enumerations of particular classes or persons or things, the general words shall be construed as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or kind as those enumerated." 49 F. Supp. 846, 859. Thus, in a statute forbidding the concealment on one's person of "pistols, revolvers, derringers, or other dangerous weapons," the term "dangerous weapons" may be construed to comprehend only dangerous weapons of the kind enumerated, i.e., firearms, or perhaps more narrowly still, handguns. Here, the term "dangerous weapons" must be given a meaning of the "same kind" as the word of established meaning. “A statute shall not be interpreted so as to be inconsistent with other statutes (rules). Where there is an inconsistency, the judiciary will attempt to provide a harmonious interpretation. ” If there is one subject that I paid very close attention to in my studies, it is law. In the example above, a hammer, as dangerous as it can be, for the purposes of the rule, is not a dangerous weapon. Not even a knife is a dangerous weapon in that rule. If there is anything on a frolic here it is the interpretation that you are trying to assign. Your interpretation cannot even get past a lawyer far less a judge. Just as you are competent in what you studied, so am I competent in what I studied. Check any text book on interpretation of rules and law and you will see that when it comes to the interpretation of rules, I am absolutely correct. ROK From: Carlton Samuels Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:21 AM To: Webmaster Cc: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org ; ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] =? Iso-8859-1? Q? SOLICITUD_DE_VOTACI =D3N_SOBRE_EL_? == Iso-8859-1? Q?CONFLICTO_DE_CANDIDATO_ALAC_MEMBER? = Roosevelt: Your interpretation of the rules here is off on a frolic, brother man. The context is a debate on the discussion list. The role of the Chair is at issue. Pay close attention to the term 'His duties will consist of, among other things,'. Following right after that comma, the clause enumerated a list of duties bestowed on the Chair and by so doing, defines the Chair. The prepositional clause 'among other things' right after 'his duties will consist of,' literally means this listing of duties is not exhaustive but here are some of them. Maybe if you substituted the synonym 'with' for 'among' you will get a better understanding. What follows is a list of attributes of the Chair we label as duties. Go further along in the same clause and pay close attention to these words: 'chair the debates of the Assembly held through discussion lists'. Reflect on the ordinary meaning of those words. There cannot be any successful contradictions to these facts: Fact #1. Jose Arce was engaged in chairing a debate on the discussion list. Fact #2. As duly elected LACRALO Chair, Jose Arce is duty bound to uphold the LACRALO Rules of Procedure. Fact #3. As Chair and after consultations, he acted within his authority and made a declaration with respect to a specific clause of the LACRALO Rule of Procedure. Fact #4: BANGO has standing, indeed an absolute right, to challenge any ruling of the chair in a debate. There is a process laid out so to do. Fact #5: The privileges and rights accorded Ageia Densi Argentina on its certification as an ALS cannot be diluted or diminished because Jose Arce is Chair. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:49 PM, Webmaster <rok@bango.org.bb> wrote: Dear Secretariat, The Chairman did not make a ruling. The Chairman attempted to make a decision on behalf of LACRALO, which he does not have the authority to do. Therefore, there can be no invoking of Rule 8 here. This is a straightforward matter. There is a difference of opinion on the matter of the suitability of a candidate. It is the members who must decide on that. It is the members who made the rules and the members have a right to interpret their own rules and change their rules if they so desire. I do not see anywhere in the rules which gives the Chairman the right to make a decision for LACRALO. Under Rule 4 it states: The General Assembly shall elect a President, whose term shall be for one year, with the possibility of reelection for one single consecutive term. The process of election of the President of the Assembly shall take into account the level of participation, leadership, commitment, and knowledge of the work of the Assembly. In the event of a tie in the course of deliberations, the President shall cast the deciding vote. His duties will consist of, among other things, establish a link between the discussions in ALAC and the contributions made by the region, represent the region in the ALAC face-to-face meetings and chair the debates of the Assembly held through discussion lists, teleconferences and face-to-face meetings. So that there is no misunderstanding, the words "among other things" is assigned by the genre of the descriptions that come after it. This is to say that things of the nature of "establishing a link between discussions", "represent the region at face-to-face meetings" and "Chair debates of the assembly" meetings. Nothing here gives the Chairman a right to make a decision for LACRALO. On the other hand, the Secretariat is charged with administrative matters. What makes this an administrative matter is that there is a question which the Assembly must resolve. The Chairman cannot resolve the question for the Assembly. The Chairman can only rule on how the Assembly proceeds. hence the rules are clear on the role of the Secretariat, both in Assembly and in teleconferences/lists, etc. Rule 7 states: "7. The Secretariat shall have administrative and informative functions. It will be responsible for maintenance of the communications systems and the proper flow of information on matters under discussion among all the ALSs belonging to the LACRALO, and any other responsibilities assigned to it by the General Assembly." Administrative means that whenever there is an action to be completed, the Secretariat comes to the aid of the Assembly and uses its expertise to administer the action. In this case, the only ruling the Chair can make is that the question or issue must be put to a vote and the Secretariat manages the vote. The Chairman cannot decide the outcome of the vote nor can he make a ruling on the vote except on the manner of the vote. The Chairman made no ruling on the procedure of the meeting of the Assembly and therefore there can be no appeal against it. The Chairman simply made a mistake which cannot be validated. According to the rules, the only ruling the Chair can make is to advise the Secretariat that there is a difference of opinion and that there is need for a vote to determine the issue. The Secretariat should then proceed to administer the vote. Please seek further advice since there is a danger that a precedent may be set that allows the Chairman to make decisions on behalf of LACRALO, which is not the intention of the stated rules. The spirit in which the rules are written suggests that all members should participate in decisions of LACRALO. ROK No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5211 - Release Date: 08/20/12