> On Jun 7, 2018, at 08:36 , Omo Oaiya <[email protected]> wrote: > > There lies the fallacy in your interpretation and your presumption to speak > for Ashok.
I do not speak for Ashok nor did I ever claim that I did. I do refer to Ashok’s own statements on the matter. There lies one of the many fallacies in your accusations. > Nowhere in our guidelines does it say that the “None of the Above” option > receiving the plurality of the votes means a win in other than the case of a > sole candidate. On the other hand, the guidelines clearly describe the > procedure to take in the case of candidates with the highest votes in a > category. Sigh… Yes, this is the literal, however illogical interpretation which you have repeatedly put forward. As I said, it is a legitimate literal interpretation of the guidelines regardless of it’s complete and utter failure to provide a logical interpretation or conclusion given what the guidelines do say. There is the “letter of the law” literal exact word for word meaning, which, if taken to reductio ad absurdum does, in fact, leave one with your conclusion. Then there is the “spirit of the law” which is the clear and only logical conclusion one can draw about the intent of the guidelines. Ashok’s previous statements on the matter and the posted and announced election results are consistent with the “spirit of the law” in this case. I agree that the guidelines should be clarified so that the letter of the law more clearly states the spirit of the law and lessens the probability of these wasteful reductio ad absurdum arguments. I do not believe any change to the result of the election is warranted. I speak only for myself here. Obviously others may be of a different opinion. I believe a number of others have spoken in agreement with my interpretation of the situation. I believe a few others have spoken in agreement with your position, but even most of them have not advocated unwinding the election. I’ve clearly stated multiple reasons that unwinding the election would be problematic and unfair to the voters in earlier messages. I won’t repeat that here. > I still await the response from AFRINIC that clarifies this. I suggest you refer back to Ashok’s previous comments which have done exactly that in terms of the current election. If you can’t find them, let me know and I will do the research for you. Owen > > Omo > > >> On 7 Jun 2018, at 16:16, Owen DeLong <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jun 7, 2018, at 07:45, Omo Oaiya <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 7 June 2018 at 15:16, Owen DeLong <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> The result is not broken. The guidelines need to be improved to avoid the >>> potential for the proposed alternate and illogical conclusion and provide >>> greater clarity. >>> >>> I marvel at your logic. The result was derived form same guidelines that >>> have potential for illogical conclusion and insufficient clarity yet it is >>> not broken? >> >> There is one logical interpretation of the guidelines. The result is >> conformance to that interpretation. >> >> There are alternative interpretations which meet the literal guidelines, but >> which come to illogical conclusions. Additional clarity in the guidelines >> could eliminate the possibility that those interpretations could be >> considered legitimate. >> >>> >>> That can be achieved without further answers from board, legal, or CEO. I >>> realize that doesn’t provide the outcome that those who proposed this >>> illogical (albeit literal) alternative interpretation were hoping for, but >>> it is the only rational outcome. >>> >>> I think you let the board, legal or CEO respond to this before AFRINIC is >>> subjected to unneccessary legal exposure >> >> I’ve done nothing to prevent them from responding. I’ve merely suggested >> that the community’s effort would be better spent improving the guidelines >> vs. whining about the current situation and asking board/CEO/legal to say >> more than has already been said by Ashok. >> >> Owen >> >>> >>> Omo >>> >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2018, at 06:34, Noah <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 7 Jun 2018, 12:44 p.m. Ben Roberts, <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> But isn’t this an academic discussion? >>>> >>>> I’m not seeing any of the candidates that were rejected by majority by the >>>> members raising any requests to appeal? >>>> >>>> >>>> We have major issues that need answers in order to fix the flaws that are >>>> apparently being avoided by those tasked with answers. >>>> >>>> If the board or the CEO or the legal counsel dodges answering some of this >>>> questions then how shall we fix what is clearly broken. >>>> >>>> Noah >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
