[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: El movimiento de las elecciones ... Ha fallado pasar. De: hcarrascob@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@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@ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>> wrote:

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

Subject: The Numbers are Plain Wrong. From: asoto@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 --]]