El 04/08/2015, a las 11:08, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> escribió:

Si mal no interpreto, entiendo que sus dos propuestas claras y  adecuadas.  

Estoy de acuerdo con ellas porque resuelven la situación presente y buscan resolver a futuro para que no ocurra otra vez el problema.

1.  La de promover  el cambio de la regla actual a una regla clara, que elimine la complicación que se generó en esta oportunidad : 

 Por ejemplo si hay un solo candidato y dentro del plazo establecido no se presentó otro, ni hubo objeciones: ese que da. Sin necesidad de encuesta.  

Personalmente me parece la solución más clara y sencilla.

2. Dado el caso de que ya ocurrió: se hizo la encuesta y dio el resultado para resolver este caso que ya está dada:  hacer nueva elección.

Parece razonable para salir del paso ahora y poder avanzar en otros temas de gran importancia.

Saludos a todos

 

2015-08-04 11:06 GMT-03:00 <crg@isoc-cr.org>:

[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]]

 Asunto: Re: Regla 11.2
 De: crg@isoc-cr.org

 Queridos miembros de LACRALO,


 Espero que podamos tener una retroalimentación razonable de todos los miembros de la
 Opinión del Defensor del Pueblo, en particular sus recomendaciones finales
das
  &quot;En este caso soy consciente de que no es la crítica de la
 decisión de celebrar una encuesta, con un número teniendo en cuenta que la lanza Hinds
 debe haber sido seleccionados por el hecho de ser el único candidato, sin
 la necesidad de una encuesta. Mirando hacia el futuro, sería útil tener un
 opinión de consenso sobre si las normas deben modificarse para prever
 esto específicamente. Pero en una situación en la que ha habido un voto
 en contra de un candidato, el proceso justo sería volver a ejecutar la elección,
 y esa es mi recomendación &quot;.


 Atentamente


 Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
 +506 8837 7176
 Skype: carlos.raulg
 El 03 de agosto 2015, a las 15:55, Chris LaHatte escribió:


> Members of LACRALO will be aware that I have been asked to look at the
> election process to give my view as to whether this has been a fair
> procedure. As the ICANN ombudsman it is part of my mandate to look at
> matters of unfairness within the ICANN community, which therefore
> includes an involvement where a process has taken place, and where I
> receive a complaint of unfairness.
>
> The process for nomination as the LACRALO representative for the
> period 2015 – 2017 began with the 30 April announcement of the call
> for nominations, and for statements by anyone nominated. The
> nomination period lasted from 30 April to the 9th May, and during that
> period Lance Hinds was nominated by Jose Francisco Arce. There were no
> other nominations. The timetable would have included an election
> period if there were other candidates, but as no other nominations
> were received, an announcement was made that Lance Hinds was elected
> by acclamation. However some members of LACRALO expressed concern that
> because there was only one nominee, that previous precedent required
> that there had to be a poll to certify that the majority of the ALS
> supported the sole nomination.
>
> On 20 July there was a scheduled LACRALO conference call, where it was
> suggested that Lance Hinds was not eligible because it was alleged
> that he had participation in businesses which created a conflict of
> interest. Lance has asserted strongly that while he does own a small
> software development company, and is the president of a local business
> support organisation (a volunteer position) that he had no conflict.
> He asserted neither of those interests had anything to do with ICANN
> policy development. Normally this should be decided by the election
> process rather than a poll subsequently held.
>
> The next step was that the poll took place and staff announced the
> results based on the process announced by Humberto and Alberto, which
> were 21 against, 19 in favour and 3 abstentions. The abstentions were
> not counted. Accordingly the LACRALO chair and secretary declared that
> the results meant that there had to be a new election.
>
> I have spoken to some, but unfortunately have not had time to talk to
> all of the interested parties. I express regret that in a volunteer
> organisation, there appeared to be attempts to silo categories of
> persons eligible, when there are clearly only a limited number of
> people with the enthusiasm and time, especially in smaller countries.
>
> It has been said to me that particularly in the Caribbean, there are
> only a small number of people who have the qualifications and ability
> to serve, and that they will often wear several different hats. In my
> view it would be a great pity to try to exclude enthusiastic
> volunteers, but of course there is an election process to properly
> canvass those issues.
>
>
> In general, when there is an election process which has been
> challenged, the fairest way to proceed is to rerun the process. There
> is also an issue of perceived fairness. Even if the process was run
> correctly, if there are strong views about the process, then an open
> and transparent procedure calling a further election would answer any
> issues of perceived unfairness, as the parties can then go into the
> second process fully aware of the issues.
>
> In this case I am conscious that there is criticism of the decision to
> hold a poll, with a number considering that Lance Hinds should have
> been selected by virtue of being the sole nominee, without the need
> for a poll. Looking forward, it would be valuable to have a consensus
> view on whether the rules should be amended to provide for this
> specifically. But in a situation where there has been a vote against a
> candidate, the fair process would be to rerun the election, and that
> is my recommendation.
>
> I am available to discuss this further if needed and invite anyone to
> contact me, in confidence if necessary.
>
>
>
> Chris LaHatte
> Ombudsman
> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>
>
> Confidentiality
> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
> confidential.
> The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to
> preserve the
> privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the
> complaint
> being investigated by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman shall only make
> inquiries
> about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity
> of, a
> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The
> Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if
> staff
> and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a
> complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such
> information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a
> complaint
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
 lac-discuss-en lista de correo
 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/ca4c48f5a3.html
--]]



_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-es mailing list
lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

http://www.lacralo.org

--

Aida Noblia

_______________________________________________
lac-discuss-es mailing list
lac-discuss-es@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es

http://www.lacralo.org