[Community-Discuss] IPv6 Usage on the Internet

[DICK, L. (MR.)]

Morning

Where can I get our IPv6 Usage on the internet? Our block is
2001:43f8:2a0::/48. Thank you

Regards

Lesedi Luke Dick
Networks | IT
University of Botswana
Tel: +267 355 4101
Fax: +267 3901594
Skype ID:   lesedilukedick

 { Please consider the environment before printing this email  }







>


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality

[Owen DeLong]

>> The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems 
>> that the companies act requires proxies.
> 
> … And we explained that in the context of Company act, the limit of 5 proxies 
> is legal. as Company act only recognise the nine(9) board members as AFRINIC 
> members(Registered Members).

We being who, exactly? Because IIRC, AfriNIC legal counsel disagreed.

> As discussed, the limit of proxy to 5 per person and  zero proxy per 
> candidate in the bylaws(which applied to Registered members and  "Resources 
> Members") was decided by this community to solve some issues to the elections 
> process. As the changes discussed here are about improving accountability, 
> encouraging participation through all means should be encouraged  instead of  
> allowing unlimited proxies.

I would argue it was made to alter some perceived issues, which I am not 
convinced were actual issues.

I am not convinced that unlimited proxies discourage participation and would, 
in fact, argue that limiting people’s choice in how they appoint proxies on 
their behalf may well discourage participation.

However, based on your assertions I decided to look into the companies act and 
see what it actually says.

As near as I can tell, the relevant sections are Part V, Subpart IV, sections 
128 through 130 which read:

> 128.  Right to demand a poll.
> 
>   (1) Any provision in the articles shall be void in so far as it 
> would have the effect -
> 
>   (a) of excluding the right to demand a poll at a general 
> meeting on any question or matter other than the election of the chairman of 
> the meeting or the adjournment of the meeting;
> 
>   (b) of making ineffective a demand for a poll on any 
> question or matter other than the election of the chairman of the meeting or 
> the adjournment of the meeting that is made -
> 
>(i)by not less than 5 members having the 
> right to vote;
> 
>   (ii)by a member or members representing not 
> less than one tenth of the total voting rights of all the members having the 
> right to vote;
> 
>  (iii)by a member or members holding shares 
> in the company conferring a right to vote, being shares on which an aggregate 
> sum has been paid up equal to not less than one tenth of the total sum paid 
> up on all the shares conferring that right; or
> 
>   (c) of requiring the instrument appointing a proxy or any 
> other document necessary to show the validity of or otherwise relating to the 
> appointment of a proxy to be received by the company or any other person more 
> than 48 hours before a meeting or adjourned meeting in order that the 
> appointment may be effective thereat.
> 
>   (2) The instrument appointing a proxy to vote at a meeting of a 
> company shall be deemed to confer authority to demand or join in demanding a 
> poll and, for the purposes of subsection (1), a demand by a person as proxy 
> for a member of the company shall be deemed to be the same as a demand by the 
> member.
> 
>   (3) A person entitled to vote on a poll at a meeting shall be 
> deemed to be a person entitled to vote for the purposes of this Act.
> 
> 129.  Procedure at meetings.
> 
>   (1) Subject to the articles and to sections 67 (voting rights) and 
> 132 (circulation of members' resolutions) -
> 
>   (a) 2 members of a company personally present shall form a 
> quorum;
> 
>   (b) any member may be elected by the members present at a 
> meeting to be the chairman;
> 
>   (c) in the case of a company having a share capital -
> 
>(i)on a show of hands each member who is 
> personally present and entitled to vote shall have one vote;
> 
>   (ii)on a poll each member shall have one vote in 
> respect of each share held by him and where all or part of the share capital 
> consists of stock or units of stock, each member shall have one vote in 
> respect of the stock or units of stock held by him which is or are or were 
> originally equivalent to one share; and
> 
>   (d) in the case of a company not having a share capital, 
> every member shall have one vote.
> 
>   (2) On a poll taken at a meeting a person entitled to more than one 
> vote need not, if he votes, use all his votes or cast all the votes he uses 
> in the same way.
> 
>   (3) A corporation may by resolution of its directors or other 
> governing body -
> 
>   (a) if it is a member of a company, authorise such person 
> as it thinks fit to act as its proxy either at a particular meeting or at all 
> meetings of the company or of any class of members; or
> 
>   (b) if it is a creditor, including a debenture holder of a 
> company, authorise such person as it thinks fit to act as 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality

[Jackson Muthili]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 7:52 PM, ALAIN AINA  wrote:
> As discussed, the limit of proxy to 5 per person and zero proxy per
> candidate in the bylaws(which applied to Registered members and  "Resources
> Members") was decided by this community to solve some issues to the
> elections process. As the changes discussed here are about improving
> accountability, encouraging participation through all means should be
> encouraged  instead of  allowing unlimited proxies.

You don't want to make decision not compatible with the company act.
That decision will be not be legally binding at any time and is
effectively null and void even if you are the community, members,
board or whatever.

.

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

[ALAIN AINA]

> On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Alan Barrett  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 14 Nov 2016, at 18:42, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> How about this:
> 
> 11.5  Ratification of policy adopted by the Board:
> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 
> shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public 
> policy meeting.
> (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the 
> community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be 
> put in force as directed by the Board.
> 
> Would that work?
 
 Sorry, no, that doesn’t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG 
 chair or a rough consensus process.  The Bylaws say that there must be a 
 Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works.  The 
 concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) 
 consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new 
 version of the PDP.  It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on 
 something that can be changed outside the Bylaws.
>>> 
>> 
>> I see. In that case, I think the concept remains sound, but that the wording 
>> is flawed. 
>> 
>> How about:
>> 
>> Any such policy instantiated by the board shall be subject to review through 
>> the PDP at the next meeting. Such review shall be treated in the PDP as a 
>> proposal to remove the changes enacted by the board. Unless the proposal to 
>> remove the changes is adopted through the PDP, the changes enacted by the 
>> board shall remain in force until later appealed or amended through the PDP 
>> or by the board under this process.
>> 
>> In any case, actions taken under the policy in question between the time 
>> instantiated by the board and the review under the PDP shall remain valid. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Does this provide a way of codifying my idea which is compatible with the 
>> existing structure and interrelation of bylaws and PDP?
> 
> Yes, I think that works, but the notice of meeting needs to be sent tomorrow, 
> with final text for all proposed changes to the bylaws, and I am not 
> comfortable making such a change without time for comments from others.  It 
> can always be proposed in the future.

 i am still convinced this should be a matter of PDP, and we should discuss 
this in that regard. I will like to see the topic in the agenda for next PDPWG 
meeting.

—Alain



> 
> Alan Barrett
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality

[ALAIN AINA]

> On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
> That wasn't an issue of illegality of AfriNIC.

> The issue was whether or not the limit on the number of proxies carried by a 
> single member would survive a legal challenge. 

Yes. This discussion went into this as some argued  that setting  the limit to 
5 per person  violate the act and so AFRINIC not operating lawfully. 

> 
> The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems 
> that the companies act requires proxies.

… And we explained that in the context of Company act, the limit of 5 proxies 
is legal. as Company act only recognise the nine(9) board members as AFRINIC 
members(Registered Members).

As discussed, the limit of proxy to 5 per person and  zero proxy per candidate 
in the bylaws(which applied to Registered members and  "Resources Members") was 
decided by this community to solve some issues to the elections process. As the 
changes discussed here are about improving accountability, encouraging 
participation through all means should be encouraged  instead of  allowing 
unlimited proxies.


—Alain





> Therefore even though it seems illogical to maintain proxies in the face of 
> electronic voting, until such time as the law catches up with technology, 
> proxies must be accepted. 
> 
> One person suggested that if we don't like this, AfriNIC could go 
> jurisdiction shopping. That's true, but in my experience, every jurisdiction 
> has its trade offs and I believe the proxy requirement in MU law is not 
> enough of a reason to undertake such an exercise. 
> 
> Indeed, I feel that there should be no limits on the number of members who 
> can appoint a particular person to be their proxy. I believe the argument 
> about "vote buying" is specious because in reality, proxy limitation does 
> nothing to reduce it. If you are buying votes, it isn't any harder to get 
> them delivered by multiple proxies than by one. 
> 
> Further, since board members are not significantly compensated for their 
> role, I fail to see the economic value in attempting to buy an AfriNIC 
> election. 
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> On Nov 11, 2016, at 22:17, Marcus K. G. Adomey  > wrote:
> 
>> Hi Dewole,
>> 
>> Kindly read 
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-October/000863.html
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> 
>> Marcus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Dewole Ajao >
>> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 2:58:33 PM
>> To: Marcus K. G. Adomey; General Discussions of AFRINIC
>> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality
>>  
>> Hi Marcus,
>> 
>> I'm not holding brief for the Chairman and/or CEO but since you have sent 
>> this to the community, I'm hoping I'm not the only whose curiosity has been 
>> stimulated to peak levels. Please share references to this "illegality" you 
>> speak of so we are better informed. 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Dewole.
>> 
>> On 11/11/2016 15:47, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:
>>> Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC,
>>> 
>>> The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the 
>>> illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are 
>>> about to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is:
>>> 
>>> Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding with 
>>> the discussion on the bylaw? 
>>> 
>>> Have I missed a something? If so forgive me.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Marcus
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss 
>>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss 
>> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss 
> 
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

[Alan Barrett]

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 18:42, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> > > How about this:
>> > >
>> > > 11.5  Ratification of policy adopted by the Board:
>> > > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 
>> > > shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public 
>> > > policy meeting.
>> > > (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the 
>> > > community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be 
>> > > put in force as directed by the Board.
>> > >
>> > > Would that work?
>> >
>> > Sorry, no, that doesn’t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG 
>> > chair or a rough consensus process.  The Bylaws say that there must be a 
>> > Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works.  The 
>> > concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) 
>> > consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new 
>> > version of the PDP.  It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on 
>> > something that can be changed outside the Bylaws.
>> 
> 
> I see. In that case, I think the concept remains sound, but that the wording 
> is flawed. 
> 
> How about:
> 
> Any such policy instantiated by the board shall be subject to review through 
> the PDP at the next meeting. Such review shall be treated in the PDP as a 
> proposal to remove the changes enacted by the board. Unless the proposal to 
> remove the changes is adopted through the PDP, the changes enacted by the 
> board shall remain in force until later appealed or amended through the PDP 
> or by the board under this process.
> 
> In any case, actions taken under the policy in question between the time 
> instantiated by the board and the review under the PDP shall remain valid. 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this provide a way of codifying my idea which is compatible with the 
> existing structure and interrelation of bylaws and PDP?

Yes, I think that works, but the notice of meeting needs to be sent tomorrow, 
with final text for all proposed changes to the bylaws, and I am not 
comfortable making such a change without time for comments from others.  It can 
always be proposed in the future.

Alan Barrett


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

[Owen DeLong]

I disagree. If a conflicted member has fully disclosed the conflict to the 
board, I believe they are capable of weighing this properly in considering his 
argument. Let us respect the board that we have elected and not treat them like 
children here. 

Owen


> On Nov 12, 2016, at 21:50, Badru Ntege  wrote:
> 
> Hi Alan 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> My main goal in the current round of Bylaws changes is to make it very 
>> difficult for AFRINIC to be captured by a minority interest.  The proposed 
>> limits of two Directors per organisation and two Directors per sub-region 
>> are more than sufficient to ensure that no one organisation or one 
>> sub-region has the majority of votes in the Board.
> 
> Definitions are very important and I think definition of “minority interest” 
> is very important.  Capture is not only organizational or even regional, we 
> have seen other sorts of capture around a number of entities our entity not 
> excluded, so its vital that we find a solution that cuts across.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Alan Barrett
>> ___
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 12, 2016, at 02:52, Christian Bope  wrote:
> 
> On 12 Nov 2016 6:24 p.m., "Alan Barrett"  wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:02, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> > >> I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text.  One of the 
> > >> difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not 
> > >> in the Bylaws.
> > >>
> > >> My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the 
> > >> community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a 
> > >> policy is rejected (not endorsed).  Here’s suggested text:
> > >>
> > >> 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board:
> > >> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 
> > >> shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the 
> > >> next public policy meeting.
> > >> (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not 
> > >> endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following 
> > >> its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy 
> > >> prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid.
> > >
> > > How about this:
> > >
> > > 11.5  Ratification of policy adopted by the Board:
> > > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 
> > > shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public 
> > > policy meeting.
> > > (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the 
> > > community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be 
> > > put in force as directed by the Board.
> > >
> > > Would that work?
> >
> > Sorry, no, that doesn’t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG 
> > chair or a rough consensus process.  The Bylaws say that there must be a 
> > Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works.  The 
> > concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) 
> > consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new 
> > version of the PDP.  It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on 
> > something that can be changed outside the Bylaws.
> 

I see. In that case, I think the concept remains sound, but that the wording is 
flawed. 

How about:

Any such policy instantiated by the board shall be subject to review through 
the PDP at the next meeting. Such review shall be treated in the PDP as a 
proposal to remove the changes enacted by the board. Unless the proposal to 
remove the changes is adopted through the PDP, the changes enacted by the board 
shall remain in force until later appealed or amended through the PDP or by the 
board under this process.

In any case, actions taken under the policy in question between the time 
instantiated by the board and the review under the PDP shall remain valid. 



Does this provide a way of codifying my idea which is compatible with the 
existing structure and interrelation of bylaws and PDP?

Owen

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 11, 2016, at 22:43, Alan Barrett  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:18, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>> Item 4, I propose changing the text in 13.5 from:
>> 
>> “13.5 Each of the following six sub-regions of Africa shall be represented 
>> by one director as indicated below:”
>> (which I think is incongruous with the new intent)
>> 
>> to:
>> 
>> “13.5 One director shall be chosen from each of the following six 
>> sub-regions of Africa:”
>> 
>> There is probably an even better way to say this, but I think it is 
>> important to convey that the directors are
>> chosen to be from the sub-regions in question, but not chosen to represent 
>> their specific sub-region.
> 
> I think I like that.  Thank you.  It removes the idea that Directors 
> “represent” sub-regions, while remaining vague about whether they have to 
> reside in the sub-region and what happens if they move.
> 
> 13.5[changed first sentence]One Director shall be chosen from each of 
> the following six sub-regions of Africa, as indicated below:
> (i) Northern Africa (seat 1);
> (ii) Western Africa (seat 2);
> (iii) Indian Ocean (seat 3);
> (iv) Central Africa (seat 4);
> (v) Southern Africa (seat 5); and
> (vi) Eastern Africa (seat 6).
> 
> 13.6[new article to be inserted]Notwithstanding the regional 
> criterion of elections of Directors for seats 1 to 6 (both inclusive) as 
> specified in Article 13.4(i) and 13.5, all Directors so elected, shall 
> exercise their powers in accordance with the Act and always act in good faith 
> and solely in the best interests of the company.
> 
> 13.7[new number, with no change from previous text]Each Director 
> elected under Articles 13.4(i) and 13.4(ii) of this Constitution shall hold 
> office for a term of three years, which term of office shall expire on the 
> date of the Annual General Members’ Meeting held on or around the third 
> anniversary of the date of appointment of such Elected Director. Subject to 
> Article [new number for what used to be 13.6], such Director shall be 
> eligible for re-election on the expiry of his term of Office.
> 

This looks good to me. 

>> Notwithstanding my continued opposition to Item 6, I would suggest that 
>> rather than “such Director is not
>> eligible for re-election” perhaps the phrase “said person is ineligible to 
>> run for or hold any seat on the Board”
>> may be a better way to state the intent.
> 
> Thnk you.  I like parts of that, but I think it prevents an ex-Director from 
> becoming CEO (who also has a seat on the Board), so I restricted it to the 
> elected seats.

Good catch. Indeed that would have been an unintended consequence. 

> 
> I now have the following text:
> 
> [13.7 as new number for what used to be the second paragraph of 13.5]
> Each Director elected under Articles 13.4(i) and 13.4(ii) of this 
> Constitution shall hold office for a term of three years, which term of 
> office shall expire on the date of the Annual General Members’ Meeting held 
> on or about the third anniversary of the date of appointment of such elected 
> Director.  Subject to Article [13.8 or other new number for what used to be 
> 13.6], and subject to the term limits in this Article, such Director shall be 
> eligible for re-election on the expiry of his term of office.  No such 
> Director shall serve more than two consecutive terms of office.  After a 
> person completes two consecutive terms of office as such a Director, there 
> shall be a three-year period during which such person is not eligible to be 
> elected or appointed to any of the seats referred to in Articles 13.4(i) or 
> 13.4(ii).
> 

This looks good to me.

Thanks.

Owen

> 
> Alan Barrett
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality

[Owen DeLong]

That wasn't an issue of illegality of AfriNIC. The issue was whether or not the 
limit on the number of proxies carried by a single member would survive a legal 
challenge. 

The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems 
that the companies act requires proxies. Therefore even though it seems 
illogical to maintain proxies in the face of electronic voting, until such time 
as the law catches up with technology, proxies must be accepted. 

One person suggested that if we don't like this, AfriNIC could go jurisdiction 
shopping. That's true, but in my experience, every jurisdiction has its trade 
offs and I believe the proxy requirement in MU law is not enough of a reason to 
undertake such an exercise. 

Indeed, I feel that there should be no limits on the number of members who can 
appoint a particular person to be their proxy. I believe the argument about 
"vote buying" is specious because in reality, proxy limitation does nothing to 
reduce it. If you are buying votes, it isn't any harder to get them delivered 
by multiple proxies than by one. 

Further, since board members are not significantly compensated for their role, 
I fail to see the economic value in attempting to buy an AfriNIC election. 

Owen


> On Nov 11, 2016, at 22:17, Marcus K. G. Adomey  wrote:
> 
> Hi Dewole,
> 
> Kindly read 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-October/000863.html
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> From: Dewole Ajao 
> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 2:58:33 PM
> To: Marcus K. G. Adomey; General Discussions of AFRINIC
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality
>  
> Hi Marcus,
> 
> I'm not holding brief for the Chairman and/or CEO but since you have sent 
> this to the community, I'm hoping I'm not the only whose curiosity has been 
> stimulated to peak levels. Please share references to this "illegality" you 
> speak of so we are better informed. 
> 
> Regards,
> Dewole.
> 
>> On 11/11/2016 15:47, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:
>> Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC,
>> 
>> The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the 
>> illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are about 
>> to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is:
>> 
>> Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding with 
>> the discussion on the bylaw? 
>> 
>> Have I missed a something? If so forgive me.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Marcus
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies

[Saul Stein]

>I don’t understand how we could keep electronic voting open for a few days 
>after the meeting.  How could we count the votes and announce the result if 
>voting is still >open?
Right, wasn't thinking. Had more the PDP stuff in my mind, but it wouldn't 
work.

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification

[Noah]

Hi Alan,

Thank you.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Alan Barrett 
wrote:

>
> > On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:53, Noah  wrote:
> > Did the BoD ever meet/seat in October and where the minutes of that
> meeting approved.
> >
> > I went here http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bod/meeting/2016 so that I
> can read but I see nothing.
>
> Hi Noah,
>
> The minutes of that meeting are published at <
> http://www.afrinic.net/about/bod/meeting/2016/1937-20160810>.
>
> Alan Barrett
>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>



-- 
*./noah*
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification

[Alan Barrett]

> On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:53, Noah  wrote:
> Did the BoD ever meet/seat in October and where the minutes of that meeting 
> approved. 
> 
> I went here http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bod/meeting/2016 so that I can 
> read but I see nothing.

Hi Noah,

The minutes of that meeting are published at 
.

Alan Barrett


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies

[Alan Barrett]

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 14:54, Alan Barrett  wrote:
>> On 14 Nov 2016, at 13:17, Dewole Ajao  wrote:
>> 
>> Perhaps we could ask from the members what the concerns are with electronic 
>> voting that make them prefer proxies. These should be addressed (where 
>> possible) to make e-voting more attractive to them.
> 
> I know that, in the past, the need to get a BOKI certificate was perceived as 
> a barrier to electronic voting.  That requirement has been removed.

Sorry, typo for BPKI certificate

Alan Barrett


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies

[Alan Barrett]

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 13:17, Dewole Ajao  wrote:
> 
> Perhaps we could ask from the members what the concerns are with electronic 
> voting that make them prefer proxies. These should be addressed (where 
> possible) to make e-voting more attractive to them.

I know that, in the past, the need to get a BOKI certificate was perceived as a 
barrier to electronic voting.  That requirement has been removed.


> While last-minute deciders may desire to keep e-voting open for a while 
> longer than onsite paper ballots (possibly to ensure that they place their 
> money on a horse that's still in the race), I don't think the Mauritius 
> Companies Act allows that at the moment. My (possibly inaccurate) 
> interpretation is that our electronic votes fall within the provision for 
> "postal votes" which are to be tallied at the meeting and annexed to the 
> minutes of the meeting. I believe the maximum that can be allowed is to do 
> the paper ballots earlier in the day and tally the electronic votes a few 
> hours after (but before the close of the meeting).

My current plan is to open e-voting about a week before the meeting, and to 
close e-voting at the same time as on-site voting is closed.

Alan Barrett


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies

[Dewole Ajao]

Perhaps we could ask from the members what the concerns are with 
electronic voting that make them prefer proxies. These should be 
addressed (where possible) to make e-voting more attractive to them.


While last-minute deciders may desire to keep e-voting open for a while 
longer than onsite paper ballots (possibly to ensure that they place 
their money on a horse that's still in the race), I don't think the 
Mauritius Companies Act allows that at the moment. My (possibly 
inaccurate) interpretation is that our electronic votes fall within the 
provision for "postal votes" which are to be tallied at the meeting and 
annexed to the minutes of the meeting. I believe the maximum that can be 
allowed is to do the paper ballots earlier in the day and tally the 
electronic votes a few hours after (but before the close of the meeting).


Dewole.

On 14/11/2016 08:48, Alan Barrett wrote:

On 14 Nov 2016, at 11:33, Saul Stein  wrote:

Personally i would like to focus on removing the need to have proxies in the 
first place.

We need to be able to easily vote for elections, resolutions and policy online.
Open the voting a week before and keep it open x days after to enable people 
who are away to catchup and vote.

This would resolve the need for people to carry proxies and thus the 
possibility to sway results

I agree that electronic voting removes the need for proxies.  I think it would 
be good if everybody voted electronically, and nobody asked for a paper ballot 
or a proxy.  Unfortunately, I think that we are legally required to allow 
voting via proxy.

We already encourage electronic voting, we open electronic voting some time 
before the meeting, and we try to make electronic voting easy.

I don’t understand how we could keep electronic voting open for a few days 
after the meeting.  How could we count the votes and announce the result if 
voting is still open?

Alan Barrett


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss



___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss