On Sat, 2 Jun 2018, 1:40 p.m. Marcus K. G. Adomey, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > Thanks Ornella and others who has been actively participating in this > discussion to help clear this issue once for good. > > Can someone explains to me why “none of the above” votes were not > counted for 2017 elections as it was done for election 2018 ? > +1 and am also curious to know why? > https > <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election>:// > <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election> > www.afrinic.net > <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election> > /fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election > <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election> > - 2017 > > https > <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2391-results-of-afrinic-agmm-elections> > ://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2391-results-of-afrinic-agmm-elections > <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2391-results-of-afrinic-agmm-elections> > - 2018 > > > > > Marcus > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ornella GANKPA <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:34:13 PM > *To:* [email protected]; General Discussions of AFRINIC; AfriNIC Discuss > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for > Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections > > > 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]>: > >> 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]> 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]>: >> >>> 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 >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Members-Discuss mailing >>>>> [email protected]https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing > [email protected]https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) [email protected] > Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing > [email protected]https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
