+1 And I would argue that based on what has been said below – even if it is still in the bylaws it be ignored since from Ashok’s statement it is in fact not in line with the law. So we remove it to sync with the law – but the limitation does not hold at the next meeting either in my view.
Thanks Andrew On 30/09/2016, 15:24, "Alan Barrett" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Ashok, > On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Alan, > I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a “Reply-To” header in future. > You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. > I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. > This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by > Andrew. Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
