- lac-discuss-es - lists.icann.org

Re: [lac-discuss-es] El movimiento de las elecciones ... Ha fallado pasar.
by hcarrascob＠gmail.com Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: El movimiento de las elecciones ... Ha fallado pasar. De: hcarrascob(a)gmail.com Estimado Carlton, Yo aprecio su preocupación. Por suerte mi familia está bien. Veremos si hay algún daño en mi apartamento durante la semana. La vida es insustituible mientras que todas las cosas materiales pueden ser reemplazados. En referencia a su correo, me gustaría pedir más tiempo para responder. Por lo tanto, puedo explicar más profundamente, porque no estoy de acuerdo con su posición. Todavía tengo que lidiar con problemas de LACRALO y también ahora con problemas derivados del terremoto. Agradeciendo de antemano. Humberto El 17/09/2015 a las 21:58, Carlton Samuels escribio: > Humberto: > I hope the earthquake and tsunami has not affected you or your family > directly and you are all safe and healthy. We are very sorry to hear > of the devastation and the lives lost as a result. > > Even before Jacqueline responds, I am responding to yours. Since I > drafted the Rules of Procedure, I can tell you authoritatively that > in this instance it is Jacqueline that is correct. Your interpretation > of the RoP fouls not just the intent of the rule but the plain > language as well. > > First of all, once credentials are issued to an ALS for an election, > they are considered PRESENT. > > Think now of your own national election, when Michelle Bachelet was > elected President of Chile in 2013. Voting is now voluntary in Chile. > You got your ballot when you arrived at the polling station in your > electoral district. You are then Present. You could vote for > Bachelet. You could vote for Mathei. Or, you could say 'to hell with > the lot of them' and deliberately spoil the ballot. Or, if it is > allowed, even walk away with the ballot in your pocket. Just another > way to protest both candidates. > > Lets begin to help you parse Rule 12, clause by clause. Take the > clause "decisions shall be taken by a majority". > > Let's go back to elections in Chile. There is a concept of a runoff in > Chilean elections, no? I would presume you know why there is such a > rule there? For the first time in 2013, unlike the previous three (3) > national elections, no runoff. Can I therefore accept that you > understand the meaning of the word 'majority' in that context? > > Majority has a very specific meaning. It means over 50%, at minimum > 50% +1. > > Move to the next clause. This: "At Large Structures present and > voting" shall mean At Large Structures casting an affirmative or > negative vote" > > Note the use of the conjunction "OR" here. That 'or' is used to denote > choice. Because depending on the question, one could respond in the > affirmative (YES) or negative (NO). In other words, both are definite > responses. > > The motion DID NOT give a plain choice of YES or NO. That choice is > assumed in execution. All votes for Arcos must be interpreted as a > YES. Similarly, the votes for Rojas must be interpreted as a YES. > > Finally, the last clause. This " At Large Structures abstaining from > voting shall be regarded as having not voted." > > I'm not sure if its the infinitive 'abstaining' that has you confused. > But the word 'abstain' in the motion means exactly what the rule says. > The term 'having not voted' is a direct instruction for interpreting > the column 'abstain'. It means count them as a NO vote. > > So now, what of the other ballots? Think about those for a few > minutes. And as you do so, think what would be a rational number to > be returned for a candidate to say "I represent the interests of the > majority of the membership of LACRALO". > > -Carlton Samuels > > > > > > > > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > /Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround/ > ============================= > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Humberto Carrasco > <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com <mailto:hcarrascob@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Dear Jacqueline, > > > I am sorry for the delay. This is because I try to write in > Spanish and English so that in that way the two lists can clearly > understand. This takes me several hours. > > > The rule 12.2 states: > > 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 as having not > voted. > > > The rule regulates three situations: > 1. That an At Large Structure casts an affirmative vote// > 2. That an At Large Structure casts a negative vote > 3. That an At Large Structure abstains from voting. > > An example covering these three situations would be: > > Do you support XXXX to become Chair of Lacralo?? > > 1. YES > 2. NO > > If an At Large Structure votes YES, it is issuing an affirmative vote. > If an At Large Structure votes NO, it is issuing a negative vote. > If an At Large Structure does nothing, it is abstaining from voting. > > This exampleperfectlysatisfy theassumptionsof the rule. > However, in the situation arising from the ALAC Member election, > the situation is different and the rule does not fit properly. > The question asked was: > > > > QUESTION: Who do you support to become the LACRALO ALAC > Representative for the period of two years beginning at the end of > the ICANN Dublin Meeting in October 2015? Please either select one > candidate from the list below (listed in alphabetical order of the > family name) or abstain: > > Â·Harold Arcos > > Â·Juan Manuel Rojas > > Â·Abstain > > The vote given in favor of Harold Arcos or Juan Manuel Rojas is an > affirmative vote. > The vote by abstention option is a negative vote. > > The ALSs who did nothing, they abstained from voting. > > > > Therefore, the results were delivered correctly. > > > Regards > > El 16/09/2015 a las 4:24, Jacqueline Morris escribiÃ³: >> >> Dear colleagues >> I've thought deeply on this, reread the working and final >> documents from 2006 and 2007, and have come to some very certain >> conclusions. >> >> The Secretariat is the position under which the ultimate >> responsibility for these calculations resides. The fact that we >> have not heard from Humberto on this issue is troubling. Staff >> are available to assist the Secretariat and Chair, but cannot >> bear the responsibility to the membership, as they are not the >> ones that we voted to hold such. >> >> I also believe that the consequences of the correct calculation >> of the vote should be spelled out so that there is no confusion. >> >> Given the very clear intent of the rule, it is obvious that as a >> consequence any motion (including motions for elections) CANNOT >> be passed if the weighted vote by ALS representatives that >> abstain or do not vote is more than 50%. >> >> Hence, I believe the motion to elect an ALAC representative has >> failed. >> I look forward to the next steps, and I hope that these, unlike >> the previous, will adhere to both the letter and spirit of the >> Rules of the LACRALO as drafted and duly approved. >> >> 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 7:31 PM, Jacqueline Morris >> <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com <mailto: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. >> > ... > > [Message clipped] > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <mailto:lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en > > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/9e747bd79c.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-es] El movimiento de las elecciones ... Ha fallado pasar.
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: El movimiento de las elecciones ... Ha fallado pasar. De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Humberto: Espero que el terremoto y el tsunami no usted o su familia ha afectado directamente y que está todo seguro y saludable. Lo sentimos mucho la noticia de la devastación y las vidas perdidas como resultado. Incluso antes de Jacqueline responde, estoy respondiendo a la suya. Desde redacté las Reglas de Procedimiento, te puedo decir con autoridad que en este instancia es Jacqueline que está correcto. Su interpretación de la Regla de Procedimiento faltas no sólo la intención de la regla pero el lenguaje sencillo también. En primer lugar, una vez que las credenciales se emiten a un ALS para una elección, se consideran PRESENTE. Piense ahora de su propia elección nacional, cuando Michelle Bachelet fue elegida Presidente de Chile en 2013. El voto es ahora voluntario en Chile. ¿Tienes tu votación cuando llegó a la mesa electoral de su distrito electoral. Usted está entonces presente. Usted podría votar por Bachelet.Usted podría votar por Mathei. O, usted podría decir "al diablo con la gran cantidad de ellos 'y deliberadamente echar a perder la votación. O, si se permite, incluso a pie con la boleta electoral en su bolsillo. Apenas otra manera de protestar por los dos candidatos. Vamos a empezar a ayudarle a analizar la Regla 12, cláusula por cláusula. Tome la "decisiones cláusula se tomarán por mayoría ". Volvamos a las elecciones en Chile. Hay un concepto de una segunda vuelta en Elecciones chilenas, ¿no? Me imagino que usted sabe por qué existe tal regla ¿Ya está? Por primera vez en 2013, a diferencia de los tres anteriores (3) nacional elecciones, ningún escurrimiento. ¿Puedo, por tanto, aceptar que usted entiende la significado de la palabra "mayoría" en ese contexto? La mayoría tiene un significado muy específico. Esto significa que más del 50%, como mínimo 50% 1. Mover a la siguiente cláusula. Este: "En grandes estructuras presentes y votantes" se entenderá En Grandes Estructuras emitan un voto afirmativo o negativo " Observe el uso de la conjunción "o" aquí. Esa "o" se utiliza para denotar elección.Porque dependiendo de la pregunta, se podría responder de la afirmativa (SÍ) o negativa (NO). En otras palabras, ambos son definida respuestas. El movimiento no dio una elección llanura de SI o NO. Esa elección es asumida en la ejecución. Todos los votos para Arcos deben interpretarse como un sí. Del mismo modo, los votos a favor de Rojas deben interpretarse como un sí. Finalmente, la última cláusula. Esta "En Grandes Estructuras abstenerse de votar se considerarán como no haber votado ". No estoy seguro de si es el infinitivo 'abstención' que tiene confundido. Sino la palabra 'abstenerse' en la moción significa exactamente lo que dice la regla. los término "no haber votado 'es una instrucción directa para la interpretación de la columna 'abstenerse'. Significa contar como un voto NO. Así que ahora, ¿qué hay de las otras boletas? Piense en las de unos pocos minutos. Y cuando lo haga, piense lo que sería un número racional a ser devuelto para un candidato a decir "yo represento los intereses de la mayoría de la miembros de LACRALO ". Ritz-Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton Un Samuels Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planeación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * ============================= El Miércoles, 16 de septiembre 2015 a las 5:11 de la tarde, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> escribió: > Dear Jacqueline, > > > I am sorry for the delay. This is because I try to write in Spanish and > English so that in that way the two lists can clearly understand. This > takes me several hours. > > > The rule 12.2 states: > > 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 as having not voted. > > > > > > > The rule regulates three situations: > 1. That an At Large Structure casts an affirmative vote > 2. That an At Large Structure casts a negative vote > 3. That an At Large Structure abstains from voting. > > An example covering these three situations would be: > > Do you support XXXX to become Chair of Lacralo?? > > 1. YES > 2. NO > > If an At Large Structure votes YES, it is issuing an affirmative vote. > If an At Large Structure votes NO, it is issuing a negative vote. > If an At Large Structure does nothing, it is abstaining from voting. > > This example perfectly satisfy the assumptions of the rule. > However, in the situation arising from the ALAC Member election, the > situation is different and the rule does not fit properly. > The question asked was: > > > > QUESTION: Who do you support to become the LACRALO ALAC Representative for > the period of two years beginning at the end of the ICANN Dublin Meeting in > October 2015? Please either select one candidate from the list below > (listed in alphabetical order of the family name) or abstain: > > > > Â· Harold Arcos > > Â· Juan Manuel Rojas > > Â· Abstain > > > > The vote given in favor of Harold Arcos or Juan Manuel Rojas is an > affirmative vote. > The vote by abstention option is a negative vote. > > The ALSs who did nothing, they abstained from voting. > > > > Therefore, the results were delivered correctly. > > Regards > > El 16/09/2015 a las 4:24, Jacqueline Morris escribiÃ³: > > Dear colleagues > I've thought deeply on this, reread the working and final documents from > 2006 and 2007, and have come to some very certain conclusions. > > The Secretariat is the position under which the ultimate responsibility > for these calculations resides. The fact that we have not heard from > Humberto on this issue is troubling. Staff are available to assist the > Secretariat and Chair, but cannot bear the responsibility to the > membership, as they are not the ones that we voted to hold such. > > I also believe that the consequences of the correct calculation of the > vote should be spelled out so that there is no confusion. > > Given the very clear intent of the rule, it is obvious that as a > consequence any motion (including motions for elections) CANNOT be passed > if the weighted vote by ALS representatives that abstain or do not vote is > more than 50%. > > Hence, I believe the motion to elect an ALAC representative has failed. > I look forward to the next steps, and I hope that these, unlike the > previous, will adhere to both the letter and spirit of the Rules of the > LACRALO as drafted and duly approved. > > 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 7:31 PM, Jacqueline Morris < > jam(a)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. >> >> ... > > [Message clipped] > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en > > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/2fad1f6572.html --]]

1 0

Moci�n de censura
by hcarrascob＠gmail.com Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Moción de censura De: hcarrascob(a)gmail.com Queridos todos, La próxima semana (teóricamente el martes 22 de septiembre) que debe tener noticias sobre el curso a seguir en esta materia. Estamos esperando a una traducción oficial. Saludos _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/a6f61b7b5d.html --]]

1 0

Moción de censura
by Humberto Carrasco Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Estimados, La otra semana (teoricamente el martes 22 de Septiembre) deberíamos tener novedades en cuanto al curso a seguir en este tema. Estamos a la espera de una traducción oficial. Saludos

1 0

Terremoto en Chile
by Humberto Carrasco Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Estimado Javier, Espero que tu y tu familia se encuentren bien en Coquimbo. Espero que no hayan sufrido daños materiales tampoco. Para el resto de los miembros de LACRALO, Javier vive en Coquimbo (la misma ciudad donde vivo yo en Chile) donde el terremoto fue de grado 7,9 en la escala de Richter. La ciudad se encuentra con graves daños producto del terremoto y posterior tsunami. Un abrazo

6 6

Re: [lac-discuss-es] Terremoto en Chile
by devtee＠gmail.com Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: Terremoto en Chile De: devtee(a)gmail.com Javier actualiza su estado de Facebook que está a salvo. Dev Anand El Jueves, 17 de septiembre 2015, <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> escribió: > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > Subject: Earthquake in Chile > From: hcarrascob(a)gmail.com <javascript:;> > > Dear Javier, > > > I hope you and your family are doing well in Coquimbo. I hope no > They have suffered material damage either. > > > For other members of LACRALO, Javier lives in Coquimbo (the > same city where I live in Chile) where the earthquake was 7.9 degree > on the Richter scale. The city is serious damage > the earthquake and tsunami. > > > A hug > _______________________________________________ > > > [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/19d11f49e0.html --]]

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-es] Terremoto en Chile
by DIEGO ALFONSO ACOSTA BASTIDAS Sept. 17, 2015

Sept. 17, 2015

Estimado Javier Estamos a la espera de noticias esperanzadoras, que tu y tu familia hayan podido superar este desastre sin desgracias que lamentar. Diego Acosta Bastidas El 17 de septiembre de 2015, 4:32, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob(a)gmail.com> escribió: > Estimado Javier, > > Espero que tu y tu familia se encuentren bien en Coquimbo. Espero que no > hayan sufrido daños materiales tampoco. > > Para el resto de los miembros de LACRALO, Javier vive en Coquimbo (la > misma ciudad donde vivo yo en Chile) donde el terremoto fue de grado 7,9 en > la escala de Richter. La ciudad se encuentra con graves daños producto del > terremoto y posterior tsunami. > > Un abrazo > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-es mailing list > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es > > http://www.lacralo.org >

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-es] El movimiento de las elecciones ... Ha fallado pasar.
by hcarrascob＠gmail.com Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: El movimiento de las elecciones ... Ha fallado pasar. De: hcarrascob(a)gmail.com Querida Jacqueline, Discúlpame por la demora. Esto se debe a que trato de escribir en español y Inglés para que de esa manera las dos listas pueden entender con claridad. Esta me lleva varias horas. La regla 12.2 establece: 12.2 Sin perjuicio de lo dispuesto en los Artículos 6.2 y 16, las decisiones serán adoptada por mayoría de los en general Estructuras presentes y votantes; para el propósito del presente Reglamento, la expresión "En Grandes Estructuras presentes y votantes "se entenderá En Grandes Estructuras emitan un voto afirmativo o negativo. A grandes estructuras se abstengan de votar se considerarán como no haber votado. La norma regula tres situaciones: 1. Que un At Large Structure arroja un voto afirmativo // 2. Que una At Large Structure arroja un voto negativo 3.Que un At Large Structure se abstiene de votar. Un ejemplo que cubre estas tres situaciones sería: ¿Apoya XXXX a convertirse en Presidente de Lacralo ?? 1. SÍ 2. NO Si un A Estructura grande vota SÍ, se está emitiendo un voto afirmativo. Si un A Estructura grande vota NO, es la emisión de un voto negativo. Si un A Estructura Grande no hace nada, se abstiene de votar. Este exampleperfectlysatisfy theassumptionsof la regla. Sin embargo, en la situación derivada de la elección ALAC miembros, la situación es diferente y el Estado no se ajusta correctamente. La pregunta era: PREGUNTA: ¿A quién apoyas a convertirse en el LACRALO ALAC Representante durante el periodo de dos años comenzando en el extremo de la ICANN Dublin Reunión en octubre de 2015? Por favor, seleccionar un candidato de la lista (incluida en el orden alfabético del nombre de la familia) o abstenerse: · Harold Arcos · Juan Manuel Rojas · Abstenerse El voto emitido a favor de Harold Arcos o Juan Manuel Rojas es un voto afirmativo. El voto por la opción de la abstención es un voto negativo. La ALS que no hizo nada, que se abstuvo de votar. Por lo tanto, los resultados fueron entregados correctamente. Saludos El 16/09/2015 a las 04:24, Jacqueline Morris escribio: > > Dear colleagues > I've thought deeply on this, reread the working and final documents > from 2006 and 2007, and have come to some very certain conclusions. > > The Secretariat is the position under which the ultimate > responsibility for these calculations resides. The fact that we have > not heard from Humberto on this issue is troubling. Staff are > available to assist the Secretariat and Chair, but cannot bear the > responsibility to the membership, as they are not the ones that we > voted to hold such. > > I also believe that the consequences of the correct calculation of the > vote should be spelled out so that there is no confusion. > > Given the very clear intent of the rule, it is obvious that as a > consequence any motion (including motions for elections) CANNOT be > passed if the weighted vote by ALS representatives that abstain or do > not vote is more than 50%. > > Hence, I believe the motion to elect an ALAC representative has failed. > I look forward to the next steps, and I hope that these, unlike the > previous, will adhere to both the letter and spirit of the Rules of > the LACRALO as drafted and duly approved. > > 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 7:31 PM, Jacqueline Morris > <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com <mailto: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(a)ibero-americano.org > <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>> wrote: > > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > Subject: The Numbers are Plain Wrong. > From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org > <mailto: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 (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/cfaa0a2a1a.html --]]

1 0

El movimiento de las elecciones ... �Ha fallado en pasar.
by jam＠jacquelinemorris.com Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: El movimiento de las elecciones ... ¿Ha fallado en pasar. De: jam(a)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(a)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(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: > >> >> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] >> >> Subject: The Numbers are Plain Wrong. >> From: asoto(a)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 (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/ba6bf3b2ce.html --]]

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-es] El movimiento de las elecciones ... Ha fallado pasar.
by carlton.samuels＠gmail.com Sept. 16, 2015

Sept. 16, 2015

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: El movimiento de las elecciones ... Ha fallado pasar. De: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com Jacqueline: Por supuesto que tienes razón. Las reglas que se discutieron, editados y adoptados en 2007 siguen siendo válidas. Regla 12.2 dice así: A reserva de lo dispuesto en las reglas 6.2 y 16, las decisiones se tomarán por mayoría de los en general Estructuras presentes y votantes; a los efectos de las presentes Reglas, la expresión "En Grandes Estructuras presentes y votantes "se entenderá En Grandes Estructuras emitan un afirmativa o voto negativo. En Grandes Estructuras abstenerse de votar será considerará que no ha votado. Para cualquier decisión a tomar, esas votaciones (excluyendo abstenciones) deben ser por encima de 50%. La corriente voto ALAC miembros no cumplen ese criterio. Creo que estaba muy claro que cualquier declaración de un elegido representante a ALAC de LACRALO de este evento fue mal y así, el representante era ilegítimo. -Carlton ============================== Carlton Un Samuels Móvil: 876-818-1799 * Estrategia, Planeación, Gobierno, Evaluación y plazos de entrega * ============================= El mar, 15 de septiembre 2015 a las 10:24 de la tarde, Jacqueline Morris < jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> escribió: > Dear colleagues > I've thought deeply on this, reread the working and final documents from > 2006 and 2007, and have come to some very certain conclusions. > > The Secretariat is the position under which the ultimate responsibility > for these calculations resides. The fact that we have not heard from > Humberto on this issue is troubling. Staff are available to assist the > Secretariat and Chair, but cannot bear the responsibility to the > membership, as they are not the ones that we voted to hold such. > > I also believe that the consequences of the correct calculation of the > vote should be spelled out so that there is no confusion. > > Given the very clear intent of the rule, it is obvious that as a > consequence any motion (including motions for elections) CANNOT be passed > if the weighted vote by ALS representatives that abstain or do not vote is > more than 50%. > > Hence, I believe the motion to elect an ALAC representative has failed. > I look forward to the next steps, and I hope that these, unlike the > previous, will adhere to both the letter and spirit of the Rules of the > LACRALO as drafted and duly approved. > > 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 7:31 PM, Jacqueline Morris < > jam(a)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(a)ibero-americano.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] >>> >>> Subject: The Numbers are Plain Wrong. >>> From: asoto(a)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 (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/d8df13fe1a.html --]]

1 0