Why can't this issue be sorted in court? Don't we have a legal counsel? On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 11:36 AM Marcus K. G. Adomey <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear CEO and Legal Counsel, > > > I wrote asking for some clarification which should come from your offices. > Up to now I have not received any response. I would be most grateful if you > could spare some few minutes from your heavy schedule to do justice to my > questions? > > > Thanks > > > Marcus > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Marcus K. G. Adomey <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, June 2, 2018 10:32:18 AM > *To:* [email protected]; General Discussions of AFRINIC; AfriNIC Discuss; > Ornella GANKPA > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for > Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections > > 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 ? > > 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
