Hi Mark
My comments inline
Le 30/05/2018 à 19:13, Mark Elkins a écrit :
On 30/05/2018 19:20, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
Owen,
2018-05-29 22:34 GMT+00:00 Owen DeLong <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
Arnaud,
While I agree that additional clarity is needed and I agree that
there is some validity to the claim that none of the above MAY
not have been a legitimate choice to place on the ballot, I think
we cannot go changing the rules of the election and violating the
expectations of the voters, membership, and community after the
election has run.
Voters, membership and community are saying: <<a mistake has been
made; let's fix it!>>
And members are saying "We are happy with the outcome" (I am, anyway).
The only folk that should be commenting on this are the voting membership.
Why is the former board member and board chair so nervous about the
scope of this discussion? This is a matter of concern for the community
at large. This is not a remake of the elections. Or maybe, it is time
to listen to the other 1409 members who did not vote?
Nobody raised an objection to the presence of none of the above
on the ballot for seat 2 prior to or during the election.
No one is raising objection even now on this option being on the
ballot as the guidelines are clear on that. the issue at hand is the
correct implementation of the guidelines as written.
Since there were more than enough voters who selected none of the
above to change the result among the remaining two candidates, it
is not legitimate to simply discard the none of the above votes
and declare one of those candidates a winner. Indeed, I would
argue that is the worst possible choice among all other options.
The other options as I see it are:
1.Allow the board to treat the seat as vacant and appoint a board
member until the
next AGMM.
2.Treat none of the above as a valid election result (in which
case it should be
considered the same for all 3 seats) and preclude the board from
appointing
anyone to the seat(s) until an election can be run.
3.Treat none of the above as a valid election result only for
seat 2 and preclude
the board from appointing seat 2 while still allowing them to
appoint seats 5
and 6.
As I see it, the best option is option 1. It allows the
organization to proceed with a full board until the next AGMM
where a hopefully more effective election can be accomplished.
I think option 2 is bad because it leaves the board precariously
short-handed with only 5 of the expected 8 members, including the
CEO. (The 3 elected members which remain, whoever is appointed to
fill Haitham’s vacancy, and the CEO).
The problem I have with option 3 is I have trouble justifying
treating the election of “none of the above” differently in this
circumstance than in the case of a single unopposed candidate. In
both cases, more voters felt that they didn’t want any of the
options on the ballot and voted not to elect any fo the
candidates. The outcome is, IMHO, the same regardless of the
number of candidates and should be handled identically.
Why? There are places in the world where "none of the above" is on
ballot and has not effect on the results
What would the point of that be then - or are people confusing "None
of the above" with "Abstain" ?
The guidelines say:
"The ballot paper should provide voters with the option to not vote for
any candidate (a. k.a. "None of the Above")"
It does not say to "reject all the proposed candidate".
It says to not vote for any candidate and the guidelines states that ,
the candidate with the highest votes wins.
Let us stop this harmful interpretation.
and candidates with the highest votes wins. It is matter of the
elections rules. In the current situation, the guidelines are clear
and explicit on how we should handle the results. So let follow it
and engage on discussions for amending the rules if we see need to
do so.
I was on the Board when this was introduced (6 or so years back?). Its
doing exactly what it was intended to - that if a person does not like
*anyone* on the list of choices - the member can instead select "none
of the above". Why does this seem so hard to grasp?
Can you point to board meeting minutes, resolutions or any other
document which support your statement? Some seems to refuse to read
the guidelines and just regurgitate whatever works for them.
The guidelines are clear and may have not been written to match your
statement.
I also fail to understand why this is fine when there is only one
natural person on the list but not fine when there is more than one
natural person on the list.
One explanation:
When I only have one candidate, the vote becomes a "yes" or " no" vote .
I need a way to count the "no" vote.
a- change the ballot to "yes" or " no", "in favor" or "against "
b- use natural candidate and " none of the above"
We were using b)
Hopefully additional clarity can be achieved prior to the next
election and we won’t have to face this issue again. Personally,
I like the idea of having “none of the above” as an option in all
cases.
Clarity and fairness is the outcome of the complaint regarding seat 2
here imho; for the rest we can agree to disagree.
I agree to agree with Owen.
Owen
Thanks
On May 29, 2018, at 14:56 , Arnaud AMELINA <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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] <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
--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
[email protected] Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:https://ftth.posix.co.za
_______________________________________________
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
