Es-En-Pt. (Alberto Soto - Humberto Carrasco)
Respuesta a la moción de censura 17092015-1.pdfAnswer English.pdfRespuesta portugues.pdf
SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENTS POSTED ABOVE:
Based on Article 11 of LACRALO RoPs, we propose the following resolution:
"LACRALO lacks competence to rule on the motion of no confidence presented by Mr. Carlton Samuels because there are no rules regulating this situation, and so the motion cannot be handled."
VOTE in a subsidiary manner to the proposed resolution above, an amendment to the operative part of Mr. Samuels' motion. This amendment consists in adding the following phrase to the operative part of the motion of no confidence:
See proposed Amendment below :
"Resolved:
The General Assembly shall demonstrate its lack of confidence in LACRALO leadership and shall vote on this motion. This motion shall be considered approved by the vote of a two-thirds majority of the ALSes' representatives present and voting."
The discussion will be opened until 8 October 2015, 23:00.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- FIRST
The voting process regarding the proposed resolution will begin on 9 October 2015, 00:00. And it will close on 16 October 2015, 23:00.
The voting process shall be governed by rules 12, 19 and 20 of LACRALO's RoP. Concerning the proposed resolution, the following question will be asked:
QUESTION:
Do you believe that LACRALO is competent to vote a motion of no confidence?
1. Yes, the motion of no confidence must move forward.
2. No, the motion of no confidence must be ignored.
a.- If the NO wins, the proposed resolution shall be considered approved. As a consequence, the proposed amendment and Mr. Samuels' motion of no confidence must be ignored.
- SECOND
b. - If the YES wins, the proposed resolution shall be considered rejected. In this case, a voting period on the amendment will be opened. The voting process regarding the proposed amendment will begin on 19 October 2015, 00:00. And it will close on 26 October 2015, 23:00.
The voting process shall be governed by rules 12, 19 and 20 of LACRALO's RoP.
The question to be answered will be:
Do you agree with the following amendment to the operative part of Mr. Samuels' motion?
"Resolved:
The General Assembly shall demonstrate its lack of confidence in LACRALO leadership and shall vote on this motion. This motion shall be considered approved by the vote of a two-thirds majority of the ALSes' representatives present and voting."
1.- YES
2.- NO
c. - If the YES wins, the amendment shall be considered approved. In this case, a voting period on the amended motion of no confidence will be opened. In this case, there will be no need to rule on Mr. Samuels' motion.
The voting process on the amended motion of no confidence will begin on 30 October 2015, 00:00, and will finish on 6 November 2015, 23:00.
The voting process shall be governed by rules 12, 19 and 20 of LACRALO's RoP.
Do you agree to approve, by the vote of a two-thirds majority of the ALSes' representatives present and voting, the motion of no confidence in LACRALO leadership?
1.- YES
2.- NO
d.- If the NO wins, the amendment shall be considered rejected. In this case, a voting period on Mr. Samuels' motion of no confidence will be opened.
The voting process on Mr. Samuels' motion of no confidence will begin on 30 October 2015, 00:00, and will finish on 6 November 2015, 23:00.
The voting process shall be governed by rules 12, 19 and 20 of LACRALO's RoP.
Do you agree to approve the motion of no confidence in LACRALO leadership?
1.- YES
2.- NO
2 Comments
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
The proposals by Humberto and Alberto in adding multiple motions for votes is calculated to frustrate the intent of the motion of no confidence and underscores the lack of accountability in the LACRALO leadership and the lack of redress in ICANN At-Large when the LACRALO leadership acts in a corrupt manner.
There has been mention of extra-ordinary or special motions in LACRALO and this is false.
There are only two types of motions in LACRALO : procedural and non-procedural.
The motion of no confidence as raised by Carlton and seconded by others is a procedural one.
It was filed before the 2nd election (of an LACRALO ALAC representative for 2015-2017) called by the LACRALO chair and secretariat and should have been heard immediately rather than the LACRALO chair and secretariat ignoring the motion to proceed with the 2nd election.
As it was a procedural motion, a simple majority of the weighted vote (greater than 50%) of the ALSes present and voting is needed for the motion to pass, as per Rule 12.2.
As such, the motion of no confidence in the LACRALO leadership as filed by Carlton (http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/2015-September/013432.html) is the only motion that needs to be heard and voted on.
Humberto Carrasco
Dev,
The first thing that you should note is that we have never acted corruptly. This is a serious accusation without foundation.
I searched the meanings of the adjective corrupt in the Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/corrupt) and our behavior could never be considered corrupt in any way.
What happens is you do not like the way that we have applied the rules of LACRALO, but that's another thing.
No LACRALO Rule of Procedure (RoP) or Operating Principle supports the motion of no confidence raised by Carlton and seconded by others. The ICANN Legal Department deems this motion a special motions without rules in LACRALO or ICANN regulation.
This motion of no confidence is not a point of order in any case. The UNGA Rules of Procedure, in particular, Article 79 of Annex IV (a) of the Rules of the General Assembly, gives a concept of what a point of order:
79. The Special Committee recommends to the General Assembly the adoption of the following text as a description of the concept of a point of order [para. 229]:
"(a) A point of order is basically an intervention directed to the presiding officer, requesting him to make use of some power inherent in his office or specifically given him under the rules of procedure. It may, for example, relate to the manner in which the debate is conducted, to the maintenance of order, to the observance of the rules of procedure or to the way in which presiding officers exercise the powers conferred upon them by the rules. Under a point of order, a representative may request the presiding officer to apply a certain rule of procedure or he may question the way in which the officer applies the rule. Thus, within the scope of the rules of procedure, representatives are enabled to direct the attention of the presiding officer to violations or misapplications of the rules by other representatives or by the presiding officer himself. A point of order has precedence over any other matter, including procedural motions (rules 73 [114] [Rule 71 [113] of the present rules of procedure] and 79 [120] [Rule 77 [119] of the present rules of procedure]).
"(b) Points of order raised under rule 73 [114]n involve questions necessitating a ruling by the presiding officer, subject to possible appeal. They are therefore distinct from the procedural motions provided for in rules 76 [117] [Rule 74 [116] of the present rules of procedure] to 79 [120]o which can be decided only by a vote and on which more than one motion may be entertained at the same time, rule 79 [120]o laying down the precedence of such motions. They are also distinct from requests for information or clarification, or from remarks relating to material arrangements (seating, interpretation system, temperature of the room), documents, translations, etc., which - while they may have to be dealt with by the presiding officer - do not require rulings from him. However, in established United Nations practice, a representative intending to submit a procedural motion or to seek information or clarification often rises to 'a point of order' as a means of obtaining the floor. The latter usage, which is based on practical grounds, should not be confused with the raising of points of order under rule 73 [114].
If the motion of no confidence is reviewed, it can be observed that the request it is not directed to the President ‘requesting him to make use of some power inherent in his office or specifically given him under the rules of procedure', but it requests ‘That the general assembly demonstrate its lack of confidence in the LACRALO leadership and vote on this motion’.
In simple terms, the motion is not a point of order. It is therefore not possible to give such treatment.