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] 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

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

[Alan Barrett]

> 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

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

[Alan Barrett]

> On 13 Nov 2016, at 09:56, Badru Ntege  wrote:
> I think this can be brought to rest if we get a position from the Afrinic 
> Legal council then subsequent legal discussion would be based on a fixed 
> organisational position.  

I have requested a clear statement from the Afrinic legal adviser.

However, I am more interested in learning what the members or community would 
like in the future.

Three obvious possibilities are:

* Remove the proxy limits;

* Keep the proxy limits, but modify the wording of the bylaws to ensure that 
the bylaws do not conflict with the Companies Act;

* Keep the bylaws unchanged, and deal with any legal challenges if they arise.


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

[Badru Ntege]

Alan

I think this can be brought to rest if we get a position from the Afrinic Legal 
council then subsequent legal discussion would be based on a fixed 
organisational position.  

I see this as the quickest route to closure.  I believe we need to close these 
open issues quicker by narrowing down and then exploring the official position.

Regards









On 11/12/16, 2:04 PM, "Alan Barrett"  wrote:

>[I changed the subject to match the discussion]
>
>> On 12 Nov 2016, at 10:17, Marcus K. G. Adomey  wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>> Kindly read 
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-October/000863.html
>
>That message is about a possible conflict between the limit of no more than 5 
>proxies specified in the Bylaws article 12.12(viii), and the Companies Act.
>
>I have heard several different legal opinions on this, both first hand and 
>indirectly.  My current opinion, which is subject to change if I hear 
>additional legal arguments, is that:
>
>* Associate Members may not vote, so proxies are irrelevant to them.
>
>* Proxy limits, if any, apply only to elections, not to votes on resolutions.
>
>* The limit in the Bylaws article 12.12(viii) does not apply to proxies issued 
>by Registered Members, but does apply to proxies issued by Resource Members.
>
>* Although the limit in the Bylaws section 12.12(viii) is phrased in terms of 
>proxies carried by a “member entitled to vote”, the limit applies equally to 
>proxies carried by an individual person who is not a member.
>
>In other words, the limit applies to proxies that are used during elections, 
>and that are issued by Resource Members, and that are carried either by other 
>members or by individual people who are not members.  The limit does not apply 
>to proxies that are issued by Registered Members. The limit does not apply to 
>proxies used during votes that are not elections.
>
>Again, the above is my current understanding of the situation, but it is 
>subject to change if I receive additional legal opinions.
>
>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