[alac] RE: [alac-admin] Pending vote on ALS #28

["Sebastian Ricciardi" <sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry fo this late answer.

I may have a severe problem with the messages on the alac-admin list :

1) I wasn´t aware of the conference call.
2) I did vote on the AEDIT application on April 15, the same day the call
was made (Please look for my answer below)
3) I am not sure I´m receiving all the messages from one of our lists. May I
suggest the use of a single e-mail address for our communications, spam
free?? Anyway, Denise, would you be so kind to ask the admin guy to check my
e-mail address on the list? It should be sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx . I use
this e-mail address for other proposes, without any trouble.

May I suggest the committee to clarify each position when voting for NO or
Abstain? Maybe we can create a new status like "More info Needed" of
something like that.

Bret, did you recorded the conference call? Is it avaliable somewhere? If it
doesn´t, can someone please update me?

Thanks so much,

Regards to all of you.

Sebastian





-----Mensaje original-----
De: Sebastian Ricciardi [mailto:sricciardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 15 de Abril de 2005 11:58 a.m.
Para: 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'Denise Michel'
Asunto: RE: [alac] VOTE: ALS #28 - Asociación Ecuatoriana de Derecho
Informático y Telecomunicaciones

 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx] En nombre de Vittorio
Bertola Enviado el: Viernes, 15 de Abril de 2005 11:57 a.m.
Para: alac@xxxxxxxxx
Asunto: [alac] VOTE: ALS #28 - Asociación Ecuatoriana de Derecho Informático
y Telecomunicaciones


Given the content of the application and the review made by the Committee, I
ask you whether you approve the request for accreditation as At Large
Structure filed by ASOCIACIóN ECUATORIANA DE DERECHO INFORMáTICO Y
TELECOMUNICACIONES on 23 March 2005.

Please express your vote by replying to this message and adding YES, NO or
ABSTAIN in the following space:

YES



Votes should not be sent to the ALAC list, but only to the addresses listed
in the Reply-To field of this message (your e-mail program should do this
automatically).

The voting period will end on 22 April 2005.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Denise Michel [mailto:michel@xxxxxxxxx] 
Enviado el: Miércoles, 01 de Junio de 2005 01:44 p.m.
Para: Erick Iriarte Ahon; Sebastian Ricciardi
CC: Annette Muehlberg
Asunto: Re: [alac-admin] Pending vote on ALS #28

Perhaps I can help clarify things.  On the last ALAC conference call it was
suggested that members in the applicants' region (eg. Erick, Sebastian,
Tadao for AEDIT) email other ALAC members their views and recommendations on
the pending applicants.  "New" ALAC members in particular thought it would
be helpful to hear from the ALAC members in the region that they are
familiar with the work of, and recommend, a pending applicant (and why) or
.... not.

Denise

michel@xxxxxxxxx

Erick Iriarte Ahon wrote:
> Sorry Annette
> 
> i don't understand you.
> I made my vote.!
> 
> Erick
> 
> 
> At 05:47 p.m. 31/05/2005, Annette Muehlberg wrote:
> 
>> Erick, Sebastian,
>> I was looking for a clear vote of the two of you in the first round - 
>> did I miss it?
>> a.
>>
>> "Roberto Gaetano" <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 31.05.05
>> 08:31:49:
>> >
>> > Erick,
>> > Unfortunately, the vote cannot be held open forever. And off my
>> memory this
>> > is not the first time that Vittorio had to reiterate invitation to
>> vote,
>> > and/or extend the deadline.
>> > There are two things that we need to investigate:
>> > 1. Why did the people not vote? Maybe because of lack of 
>> > information or because they did not make up their mind (and in this 
>> > case an abstention would have been more appropriate that to omit to 
>> > vote)? Or maybe
>> they did
>> > not have time? And in this case we have to check how can we 
>> > possibly function.
>> > 2. Is this situation contingent or structural? In other words, was
>> this an
>> > incident, unlikely to reproduce itself, or do we have to take into
>> account
>> > permanently the absence of some members? Please be aware that this
>> is not a
>> > "moral" consideration, or a call for more engagement, just the need 
>> > to acknowledge the situation: is the ALAC working with 15 full 
>> > members,
>> or do
>> > we have an average participation of 10 (or whatever number,
>> substantially
>> > lower than 15)? This might well be the nature of ALAC. People are 
>> > volounteers, have daytime jobs, other engagements, etc. and 
>> > therefore periods of absence are justifiable, or at least in the 
>> > nature of
>> things.
>> > However, in that case, we need to be aware of it. For instance, we
>> might
>> > need to change the voting rules: since at any given week there is 
>> > the likelyhood to have some members not online for the whole 
>> > period, we
>> might
>> > need to state that the majority is not the one over the full
>> membership, but
>> > the one who voted.
>> > In any case, the worst thing that we can do is to try to hide the
>> result. It
>> > would be a bad precedent to go to a new vote without a public
>> explanation on
>> > why we did, to call a rose a rose, disregard the result of a vote
>> held in
>> > conformity with the current rules.
>> > Regards,
>> > Roberto GAETANO
>> > ALAC
>> > ICANN BoD Liaison
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >From: Erick Iriarte Ahon <faia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > >To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        "ALAC (Internal)"
>> > ><alac-admin@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >Subject: Re: [alac-admin] Pending vote on ALS #28
>> > >Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 22:04:32 -0500
>> > >
>> > >Hi..
>> > >
>> > >Sorry but i don't understand, if we (ALAC) are 15 members, and 
>> > >only 11 members made votes, i think first, we need to have 
>> > >complete the
>> votation
>> > >and then take a decision.
>> > >
>> > >If we believe in democratic process we need to participate in the 
>> > >democratic process, this organization can be one ALS but the
>> apathy  of
>> > >someone don't want this.
>> > >
>> > >Erick
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >At 03:47 a.m. 30/05/2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>> > >>Hello,
>> > >>
>> > >>as discussed in last week's conf call... I did not send a result
>> for the
>> > >>accreditation vote on ALS #28 (Asociación Ecuatoriana de Derecho 
>> > >>Informático y Telecomunicaciones) because we did not approve it. 
>> > >>I received 11 votes, with 8 yes, 1 no, 2 abstain.
>> > >>
>> > >>In any case, if we want to announce that we have rejected the 
>> > >>application, we need to have an explanation ready... and in this
>> case,
>> > >>apart from our usual difficulties in getting all members to vote, 
>> > >>I guess that some of the people who voted against or abstained 
>> > >>felt
>> that
>> > >>there was not sufficient information.
>> > >>
>> > >>This is possibly a fault in our process, since we should not get 
>> > >>to a vote if we feel that we don't have enough information; at 
>> > >>the same
>> time,
>> > >>we need a way out of this. Perhaps our Latin American members who
>> know
>> > >>this organization could give some more explanations to the group, 
>> > >>so that we can discuss and then decide whether to hold a new vote 
>> > >>(hopefully to approve it) or whether there are actual objections 
>> > >>that would justify a rejection.
>> > >>
>> > >>Thanks,
>> > >>--
>> > >>vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] 
>> bertola.eu.org]<-----
>> > >>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > _________________________________________________________________
>> > Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from 
>> > McAfee® Security. 
>> > http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________
>> Mit WEB.DE FreePhone mit hoechster Qualitaet ab 0 Ct./Min.
>> weltweit telefonieren! http://freephone.web.de/?mc=021201
> 
> 
>