Since the bylaws feedback period was extended, I decided to take advantage of 
the time and do a more thorough review of the bylaws. Below are my findings. 
While the message is long, I believe that each and every finding is pertinent 
to improving the bylaws to make a more functional organization. Some are merely 
typographical corrections while others are more substantive.

This email strictly attempts to address the errors and omissions in the bylaws 
without contemplating any major changes to the intent or the structure of the 
organization.

I hope the community and the governance committee find this work useful:

====================

The word OBJECTS in section 3 would (at least in the US) most commonly be 
expressed as “Objectives”. Perhaps this (seemingly odd) terminology is an 
artifact of Mauritian legal construction and/or translation from French, but 
absent a pressing need to preserve the exact term, I would suggest that 
“Objectives” more accurately represents the intent here…

See: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/object
vs.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective?s=t

In section 3.4, there are a couple of places where I believe AfriNICs duty 
would be better expressed to the community rather than the membership. 
Specifically:

3.4 (v) …in the best interests of members… suggest …in the best interests of 
the African internet community…
3.4 (vi) …standards related to internet service provision to members. suggest … 
standards related to internet service provision to the African internet 
community.

4.1 should be made more generic unless there is a legal prohibition of same. 
For example:

4.1 Funding for the running of the Company shall be realized from the following:

        (i) Fees for various services related to the registration of internet 
number resources
        (ii) grants and voluntary donations
        (iii) fees for other services such as training
        (iv) such other sources as may be deemed appropriate from time to time 
by the Board

6.3 is awkwardly worded. Suggested replacement:
6.3 Individuals elected as Directors in accordance with Article 13 below shall 
be Registered Members. The Chief Executive Officer, also, shall automatically 
be appointed as a Registered Member. Prior to appointment as registered 
members, each individual shall sign such forms as may be prescribed by the laws 
of Mauritius and to contribute Rs. 500 (five hundred Mauritian rupees only) in 
the event of the Company being wound up according to Article 22.

Suggest adding the following sections:

6.5 Associate Member - A legal entity shall be deemed an Associate Member after 
completing the following actions cumulatively:
(i) Demonstrated that he/she/it is based within the AfriNIC service region or 
operates a network within the region.
(ii) Signed AfriNIC’s associate membership agreement and completed AfriNIC’s 
associate membership application.
(iii) Paid the applicable membership fee to AfriNIC.

7.1 I see no reason not to include associate members in this section. Suggested 
rewording:

7.1 Each member (regardless of type) shall be entitled to receive notice of all 
member meetings in accordance with Articles 12.4 and 12.11 below, as 
applicable, and to attend all such meetings.

7.2 I do not believe associate members should participate in the election of 
the Board and I believe that this provides a path for organizational capture.
Suggested rewording:

7.2 Annual General Members Meeting Rights
(i) Resource and Registered members shall be entitled to, by majority vote on 
the day of each Annual General Members’ Meeting, to elect the Directors of the 
Company in accordance with Article 13.5 below.
(ii) All members (regardless of type) shall be entitled to discuss and comment 
on the general policies of the Company on such issues and for such a time as 
shall be reasonably allowed by the chairperson of the Annual General Members’ 
Meeting.

If my suggestions to amend the above sections are taken, then sections 7.4 and 
7.5 become obsolete and should be deleted.

7.6 section (iv) suggest replacing the word “objects” with “objectives” as 
above.

8.2 does not allow for the transfer of a resource membership in the event of 
death of an individual resource member to a willing successor heir.

Suggest modifying 8.2(i) as follows:

(i) the Resource Member, if not an individual, ceasing to exist pursuant to the 
laws fo its country of incorporation or, being an individual, upon his death 
except that an individual may provide for the transference of his resource 
membership to an heir or successor which takes on the continued operation of 
the network requiring the resources associated with the membership.

Section 9.1 is an absurd tautology… No person is a candidate at the time of 
appointment of the Nom Com because the Nom Com selects those individuals to be 
candidates.
Suggested rewording:

9.1 No person shall be appointed to the Nom Com if that person states an intent 
to become a candidate in an election for which the Nom Com is nominating 
candidates. No person who is domiciled in a region whose seat is open for 
renewal in the current election shall be appointed to the Nom Com.

Section 9.2 lacks transparency and is open to abuse. Suggested rewording:
9.2 The Nom Com shall report to the Board and operate under such guidelines as 
may be prescribed by the Board. All such guidelines shall be published to the 
AfriNIC membership and to the African Internet Community no less than 90 days 
prior to the selection of members of the Nom Com.

Section 9.3(a) is unclear on what constitutes “a satisfactory number of 
individuals”. Suggest modifying this to specify no less than 2 individuals for 
each open seat in the election.

Typographically, 9.3(ii) d) should be on the line below c).

Section 12.1(iv) does not address the potential situation where someone 
believes that the chair of the meeting has acted outside of the constitution. 
Propose adding the following:

12.1(v) In the event that a point of order is raised claiming that the chair’s 
ruling in the preceding subparagraph is not in line with this constitution, the 
motion shall be heard by the board members present. The chair may then limit 
discussion of the matter to any reasonable amount of time not less than 10 
minutes, followed by a vote of the board members present to determine if the 
chair’s ruling was consistent with this constitution. If the board members 
determine that the chair’s ruling was out of order, they shall come to 
consensus on an alternate ruling and present that new ruling to the community. 
That ruling will be final and not subject to any appeal.

There is ambiguity in section 12.3 where it could be construed in multiple ways 
as to the class(es) of members represented.

“All members entitled to attend and vote” could be either interpreted as the 
intersection of members entitled to attend and those entitled to vote (that is 
only those who have both rights) or it could be interpreted as the union (that 
is both members entitled to attend and members entitled to vote). Indeed, since 
there are no members entitled to vote who are not by the nature of that right 
also entitled to attend, one could argue that the intersection is not the 
logical interpretation and therefore the union must have been the intent of the 
framers. IMHO, the community should discuss this matter and come to a consensus 
on which intent more accurately reflects the best interests of the membership 
and the community.

If the intent is truly the intersection, then I suggest simply removing the 
reference to members entitled to attend as it is superfluous verbiage which 
creates unnecessary confusion.

If the intent is truly the union, then I suggest simply removing the reference 
to members entitled to vote as it is then superfluous verbiage which creates 
unnecessary confusion.

I believe that section 12.4 could be abused in order to deny some subset of 
members their rights. As such, I suggest that it either be stricken or severely 
limited in its scope (i.e. place limits on the number of members omitted or 
otherwise curtail the potential scope of abuse that could be committed under 
this section. I believe this matter should be specifically discussed by the 
membership and the community to come to consensus on the best limitations to be 
placed here.

The language in section 12.5 (or where directed by the Annual General Members’ 
Meeting) is difficult to parse in its limited context. Suggested replacement of 
12.5:

12.5 The chairperson may of necessity, or where directed by vote of the members 
present, adjourn the Meeting from time to time and from place to place, but no 
business shall be transacted at the reconvening of any adjourned AGMM called 
under Article 11.1 other than the business left unfinished at the AGMM from 
which the adjournment took place.

I do not believe that 12.7 is appropriate. I believe that associate members, 
while not receiving voting rights should be given the right to speak and 
comment on regular and special motions and other matters at an AGMM. I suggest:

12.7 Associate members may attend and participate in the AGMM, though they 
shall not have the right to vote on matters before the membership.

Section 12.9 does not (technically) allow for e-voting to begin before the day 
of the meeting. Also, the “such other method of communication” clause could be 
subject to abuse. I suggest that a limit should be placed on that clause 
providing that any changes to the mechanism of voting must be noticed to the 
community prior to the announcement of the slate by the Nom Com.

I believe that the quorum requirements in 12.10 should be overhauled. The 
number of resource members allowed to constitute quorum is incredibly low 
compared to the current resource membership of AfriNIC and could be abused. 
Further, the requirement for elected directors has proven onerous under the 
current circumstances. As such, I suggest that the word “elected” be replaced 
with “elected or appointed” in 12.10(ii) subparagraphs a) and b). I believe the 
community should discuss and come to consensus around the number of resource 
members required for quorum, but would suggest that not less than 20 would be 
worthy of consideration.

There is a problem with the language in 12.12(viii) in that a proxy who is not 
a member would not be subject to any limitation while a member would be limited 
to casting a total of six votes. Further, the limitation is on the number of 
proxies carried during the election rather than the number of proxies used in 
the election, thus further restricting a member from carrying proxies that may 
be used during votes on motions due to the nature of the time required to 
appoint a proxy vs. the time of the election. Personally, I think that this 
whole rule is rather absurd and contrary to the interests of the community, but 
I understand that it has wide support in the community. As such, I would 
suggest the following replacement:

(viii) No entity (whether natural person or corporation) may exercise more than 
five (5) proxies during any election held by the Company. If said entity is a 
member entitled to vote, this will allow the member to exercise up to six (6) 
votes. If said entity is not  a voting member, then it would limit the member 
to no more than five (5) votes.

Section 12.13 does not require minutes for members’ meetings other than the 
AGMM. This is absurd. Suggest replacing “Annual General Members’ Meetings” with
“Members' Meetings” in 12.13 subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii).

Section 12.13 should require the publication of the minutes on a timely basis. 
Suggest adding to section 12.13

(iv) The Minutes of all Members’ Meetings and Board meetings shall be published 
(made available to the general public electronically in accordance with the 
preceding subparagraph) upon approval by the board, but in no case more than 30 
days after the conclusion of the meeting represented in the minutes.

Section 12.14(ix) should be stricken. The board should not have the right to 
censor proposals from members and refuse to bring them to a floor vote.
Alternatively, should the body choose not to strike 12.14(ix), then there 
should be added a mechanism to appeal the board’s decision to reject such a 
matter to the membership and there should be a threshold established for the 
membership to be able to override said board decision. (e.g. "if no less than 
10 members eligible to vote agree that the matter should be heard and voted 
upon by the membership at the meeting, then the board’s decision shall be 
overridden”)

Section 13.1 et. seq. probably needs a rewrite given that it was not followed 
by the board in response to the events in Dakar.

Section 13.4 I believe it is time to increase the number of directors which are 
appointed at-large, either by expanding the board or by consolidating some of 
the regions. I propose that the number of at-large directors should be equal to 
the number of regional directors.

Section 13.7 is inconsistent with Section 13.1. This should be remedied.

Section 13.14 is inconsistent with Section 13.1. This should also be remedied.

Section 14.1 subparagraph (v) fails to contemplate other mechanisms by which 
the CEO may depart (resignation, death, etc.). This should be corrected.

Section 16 should be deleted and the Council of Elders should be disbanded and 
thanked for its service. While this council provided benefit to the leadership 
of a younger organization in previous years, that time has passed and the 
council has become an anachronism which is not, IMHO, benefiting the 
organization.

Section 19.9 should be stricken, ideally being replaced by:

19.9 Votes of the Board shall be by roll call vote and the vote of each member 
shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

19.13 should be brought into the 21st century:

(iii) The board may pass a resolution by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of 
all Directors then entitled to vote submitting their assent to the secretary of 
the company and the board by email except that any such resolution shall be 
subject to a board member repudiating his alleged vote within 10 days of the 
notification of the vote. Any resolution thus repudiated shall require a voice 
vote at an actual meeting of the board in order to be passed. This repudiation 
to be used to prevent resolutions through e-mail fraud or impersonation.

Respectfully submitted,

Owen DeLong
[email protected]


_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Reply via email to