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]>:
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]> 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]> 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.
Moreover Art 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 process as it stands today is the one which was
applied during the 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 requested to 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 prevailing
constitution 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 [1]
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]>
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 [1]
*
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.
* 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]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss [2]
