"none of the above" was counted in 2017: https://youtu.be/HSJCRrKoOgs
08.06.2018, 03:37, "Marcus K. G. Adomey" <[email protected]>: > 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://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election - 2017 > > 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 list [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 >>> 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 _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
