Dear Arnaud,
I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the issue under hand.
Ashok.
On 30/05/2018 01:56, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
Dear Ashok as a lawyer you know that there is the law and spirit of
the law, please read bellow
2018-05-25 11:18 GMT+00:00 Ashok <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Dear All,
I apologize for having missed your rejoinder to my mail.
Despite the delays, we appreciate your response as the matter is of
great concern.
Your first question regards the reason as to why the same
principle has been applied to the election for Seat 2
notwithstanding the fact that there were two candidates.
My response is that an election cannot be run on different
principles. In this particular election the option "none of the
above " was
introduced for the first time and everyone was aware of this and
it applied to all the elections held on that day. The Election
guidelines were amended to acomodate this option.
Yes indeed and the elections guidelines explicitely addressed the case
of only a single candidate running for election and the option " none
of the above" in this case got more votes than the sole candidate but
is very silent in the case of multiple candidates running for
elections with the option "none of the above" getting more votes.
Anytime elections involve the option "none of the above", there are
always clear rules on how the results are interpreted and the actions
that must be taken when the option "none of the above" get more votes
than the multiple candidates.
It's not my intention to teach you something here, but it does look
very bizarre that the legal counsel never bothered to help the board
to make the guidelines unambiguous and conform to members expectations.
Consequently this option has to be taken in consideration when
finalising the results.
Where there were two candidates. The options for voters were (1)
yes for candidate (1)-((2) yes for candidate 2-(3) yes for non of
the above.Each one is mutually exclusive.
Each score to be counted separately. The majority for either
option wins the day.
Following your reasoning above and the guidelines which say the
candidate with the highest votes win, the members and community should
then accept "none of the above" as the elected candidate and seated
although "none of the above " did not go through Nomcom and was not
listed on the candidates slates published by Nomcom.
Which means seat 2 should not be declared vacant to be filled by board.
Filling seat 2 by board would constitute the violation of "none of
the above" rights and of our rules and thus expose us to legal litigation.
One should not create a fictitious majority by adding votes polled
by (1) & (2) together. The real majority was to all intents and
purposes the option which polled the most votes. There is no need
to extrapolate or interpret.
There is No fictitious majority being created. It was just an example
of how this case could have been interpreted just like you do have
your own interpretation.
In many cases, abstention is compared to voters in order to decide
how to proceed with validating an election and counting results..
Where there was one candidate there were two options- Yes for the
single candidate or yes for "non of the above"
The case of a sole candidate is clear as per the guidelines and there
are no objections on seat 5 and 6 results.
My reference to Art 10.2 was based on the decision of the members
present at past AGMMs to have the option of rejecting a single
candidate or to give their approval to the single candidate, This
has occurred more than once.
And once again, the case of a single candidate is handled as members
agreed to and not debated
Thank you
Legal Counsel AFRINIC.
On 24/05/2018 21:11, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
Dear CEO and Chairman
It looks like the Legal counsel has not responded to this query
bellow regarding this very important issue about the recently
concluded elections.
Could you kindly remind him?
Let us address this to a good conclusion in order to enforce the
respect of our rules and processes.
Regards
Arnaud
Le sam. 19 mai 2018 11:40, Omo Oaiya <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
Dear Legal Counsel,
Thanks for your input. Much appreciated.
Your statements reinforce the interpretation of section 9.2
of the guidelines with the origin of the "none of the above"
option in the election process and how votes for this option
are considered in the case of one candidate running for
election for a seat. [Last bullet point]
Case in which the election becomes a "yes" or "no" vote for
the only candidate. This point is clear and accepted and
the objection is not for the results for seat 5 and 6.
What has not been clarified is how the same principle came to
be applied for the elections for seat 2 which had two
candidates running for the seat, one of whom got higher votes
than the other, with the total number of members casting
votes in excess of those opting out.
You also referred to art 10.2 of the constitution but did not
elaborate on the precedence that occurred that has become an
integral part of our guidelines. As precedence automatically
becomes part of the election guidelines, it is important that
we address issues which come up around the election with care
and unambiguously.
Can you be so kind to clarify?
Best wishes
Omo
PS: Grateful to listers to please keep this thread confined
to the subject.
On 17 May 2018 at 17:17, Ashok <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Dear Members and Community,
Mt views have been sought on the matter under reference.
Please find same hereunder.
On 17/05/2018 14:04, B
*_The Election Process and last AGMM._*
The appointment of Directors is carried out during an
AGMM of the Company –Art 13.1 of the constitution.
The election of the Directors is carried out in terms of
Art 13.2 of the constitution which refers expressly to
the election process approved by the Board.
MoreoverArt 10.2 of the Constitution refers to precedent
applied during an AFRINIC election and which de facto
become part of the election guidelines.
The election processas it stands today is the one which
was applied duringthe elections held during the last AGMM
without any opposition.
This is what it provides:
*9.2 Paper Ballot on Election Day*
The voting conducted during the Annual General Members'
Meeting is carried out via paper ballots containing a
list of candidate names and a ballot number. Prior to the
vote, all members present or participants holding a proxy
will be requested to register and validate their
membership status.
+ Voters should only vote for one candidate per
category/region. Each mark on a ballot paper
represents one vote. A ballot with more than
one mark per category/region will be
considered spoilt, and not be counted.
+ The ballot paper should provide voters with
the option to not vote for any candidate
(a.k.a. "None of the Above").
+ This will be a secret ballot election. An
inclusion of any personal data on the ballot
paper will invalidate the vote and will be
counted as spoilt.
+ Elections will be closed as soon as the last
member or proxy present in the meeting room
casts his/her vote. Candidates with the
highest number of votes in each category will
be declared winners.
+ In the event of a tie for an open position,
voting for that position will be repeated
(Only by paper ballot) the same day until
there is a winner.
+ All open positions shall be subject to an
election process even if there is only one
candidate. In that event, if the option [none
of the above] got more votes than the only
candidate, then the seat shall be considered
vacant and the Board will be requestedto
apply provisions of the Bylaws to temporarily
fill the vacant seat
The last amendment of the election guidelines introduced
the voting option “ None of the Above”. –(Vide second
bullet point above.)Those voters who have cast their
votes for “ None of the Above” have done so in compliance
with the prevailingconstitution and these are thus valid
votes. Every voter was aware of the new option.
The election guidelines are clear as to what happens when
the “ None of the Above” option has a majority.- (Vide
last bullet point above.)
The election guidelines must be read as a whole and all
the provisions read together.
Legal Counsel –AFRINIC
17.05.2018
oubakar Barry wrote:
Hello Board and Legal Counsel,
Good that Omo spotted this.
It’s a matter of applying the board election process
adopted by the board according to section 13.2 of the
bylaws.
https://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process
<https://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process>
describes the process and section 9 spells out how to
interpret the results in the case there are more than
one candidate and in the case there is only one
candidate. These two cases are addressed separately and
differently.
It’s important to hear from the Board and the Legal
Counsel, as the elections can be challenged.
Please advise.
Regards.
Boubakar
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Omo Oaiya
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Greetings All,
I am looking at the BoD election process and it
seems to me that the recent e-mail from the Board
Chair seeking nominations for vacant seats should
not be extended to Western Africa.
The particular clause I am referring to is in 9.2 -
https://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process
<https://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process>
*
Elections will be closed as soon as the last
member or proxy present in the meeting room
casts his/her vote. Candidates with the highest
number of votes in each category will be
declared winners
I see from the list for West Africa that the
candidate with the highest number of votes should
have been declared winner and this is Dr Ousmane
Tessa. (btw, Dr Adewale Adedokun needs his name
spelt correctly)
*Western Africa - Seat 2*
Dr Adelawe Abedekon - 43
Dr Ousmane Moussa Tessa - 56
None of the above - 78
/Result: The seat is vacant/
The results from the other regions are valid and
supported by the following clause as they had one
candidate.
o All open positions shall be subject to an
election process even if there is only one
candidate. In that event, if the option
[none of the above] got more votes than the
only candidate, then the seat shall be
considered vacant and the Board will be
requested to apply provisions of the Bylaws
to temporarily fill the vacant seat.
Can AfriNIC and the nomcom please clarify? We
should not deprive Dr Tessa of a rightful win ….
especially in the circumstances we find ourselves.
Omo
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
_______________________________________________
Members-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss>
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
