Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

would make any sense whatsoever and I just >>> don’t see it ever happening – but if we want to be paranoid and protect >>> against it – limiting proxies certainly won’t do that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>>

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Hi, On 10/4/2016 10:44 PM, Boubakar Barry wrote: > In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote > differently than instructed. > > By limiting the number of proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this > risk, but we would at least reduce it. I would argue that the

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

a >> special resolution for anything on the floor – and I would encourage people >> who really believe that this is limit SHOULD be there to do exactly that – >> attempt to fix the wording in the bylaws such that there is actually a >> legitimate limit. I just doubt it would pass a 7

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

; > > > > > *From: *Boubakar Barry <boubakarba...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 23:00 > *To: *Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> > *Cc: *Hytham El-Nakhal <hyt...@tra.gov.eg>, "community-discuss@afrinic.net" > <

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

am El-Nakhal <hyt...@tra.gov.eg>, "community-discuss@afrinic.net" <community-discuss@afrinic.net> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum To be honest, I just read the beginning of your email. Many other important things to do. Just to say: for a

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

ra.gov.eg> Cc: "community-discuss@afrinic.net" <community-discuss@afrinic.net> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In many countries, and not only in Africa, people buy votes and/or vote differently than instructed. By limiting the number of pro

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

r 2016 at 17:29 >> *To: *Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com >> <mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey <jrhounto...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jrhounto...@gmail.com>>, "community-discuss@afrinic.net >&

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

I don't think it's about diplomacy; it's rather about politeness and maturity. Boubakar On Monday, 3 October 2016, Alan Barrett wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. > > Alan Barrett > > >

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

nity-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Dear Andrew, I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. Alan Barrett ___ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listin

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Dear Andrew, I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions. Alan Barrett ___ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Jackson, > > Again, let me clarify my use of wording: > > Firstly - do I believe that it is irresponsible when I believe that someone > is advocating for ignoring the law. Yes - I do, and my opinions my

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

<community-discuss@afrinic.net> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Writing in my personal capacity. > > Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Writing in my personal capacity. > > Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list – unless > explicitly stated – is written in my personal capacity and not as a > director. Why are you

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Hi Alain, On 10/1/2016 4:54 PM, ALAIN AINA wrote: ... > Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to "Registered members" > seems inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things… ... I want to ask and not assume. Do you mean that "questioning other things" is a bad thing? Or was

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

+1. We need to find an outcome that works for the entire community. On 1 Oct 2016, at 10:57 pm, Boubakar Barry > wrote: This whole discussion looks like confronting the company act AfriNIC has to comply with as an organisation

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

This whole discussion looks like confronting the company act AfriNIC has to comply with as an organisation registered in Mauritius with the bylaws that the community wishes AfriNIC to have as governance guideline. Reading some of the contributions, I have the impression that AfriNIC has been

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Alain, Quite frankly – I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible. Yes, AfriNIC is a community of members that believes in a bottom up approach. You are correct there – and within the bounds of the law the bottom up process must be

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

+1 Le 1 oct. 2016 13:55, "ALAIN AINA" a écrit : > Hello All, > > It is deplorable that this thread on proxy went in a such chaotic mode and > one had the impression that people were talking without listening to each > other. > > We have had so many times, discussions around

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Hi, On 9/30/2016 9:21 PM, Hountomey Jean Robert wrote: >> And will make AfriNIC procedures legal under Mauritius law. > > Great. > > Are we trying to fix a mistake we have all made in the pass ? There is room for misunderstandings, and I don't want any to happen. What action or omission do

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

On 30 Sep 2016 21:23, "Hountomey Jean Robert" wrote: > > > And will make AfriNIC procedures legal under Mauritius law. > > Great. > > Are we trying to fix a mistake we have all made in the pass ? > +1 and this is why we are all openly discussing this issues so that we can

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

>> *To: *Andrew Alston <andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com >> <mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey <jrhounto...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jrhounto...@gmail.com>>, "community-discuss@afrinic.net >>

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

.oa...@wacren.net<mailto:omo.oa...@wacren.net>>, "community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>" <community-discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum A

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

> On 30 Sep 2016, at 7:42 pm, Frank Habicht wrote: > > > On 9/30/2016 5:42 PM, Jean-Robert Hountomey wrote: >>> +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that >>> currently do exist >> >> Which will take us backward, open the door for further

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

+1 Badru Ntege CEO NFT Consult Ltd Www.Nftconsult.com “Vision without execution is hallucination.” �D Thomas A. Edison On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:10 pm, Arnaud AMELINA > wrote: Dear CEO, we appreciate your

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Hi, On 9/30/2016 5:29 PM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that > electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don’t need > them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better > accountability, proxies can be limited

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

> On 30 Sep 2016, at 18:29, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so > we don’t need them. The task of the election committee would be greatly simplified if we did not have proxies and did not have paper votes,

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

> On 30 Sep 2016, at 18:42, Jean-Robert Hountomey wrote: > >> +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that >> currently do exist > > Which will take us backward, open the door for further disagreements, add > additional burden on the election

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

> On 30 Sep 2016, at 18:59, Noah wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2016 15:26, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies > > should be removed. > > > > Hi Alan, > > Ok what is going on here > >

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

> +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that currently > do exist Which will take us backward, open the door for further disagreements, add additional burden on the election committee and require additional controls. Jean-Robert.

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

arrett <alan.barr...@afrinic.net> Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Dear CEO, we appreciate your contributions and clarification. However we would like to remind you that your position

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Dear CEO, we appreciate your contributions and clarification. However we would like to remind you that your position does not allow you to make decisions unilaterally, or to intervene in favor of options or proposals. Good governance require you to remain neutral as you are the one in charge of

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Dear Alan, I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:48, Andrew Alston > wrote: > The problem here and this is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what > has always been communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members > as shareholders. There are numerous instances

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Hi Alan, Writing wearing my member hat…. The problem here and this is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what has always been communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members as shareholders. There are numerous instances where this has been stated both on the floor at

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

+1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that currently do exist -1 For adding any new restrictions I paid my membership fees like the rest and feel my vote counts if it is online or via proxy. Just my 2 cents. Kind regards. -- Bennie Joubert Tel: +27.87060

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

I am also far from convinced that the limitation on proxies would stand up to legal scrutiny and I would like to hear informed legal opinion on this. The fifth schedule of the companies act – clause 6, makes specific references to proxies – and is explicit that any member may appoint anyone as

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:22, Badru Ntege wrote: >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 5:30 PM, Andrew Alston >> wrote: >> >> Correct – I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) >> is that the limitation does not apply to

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Sep 2016, at 5:30 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > > Correct – I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) > is that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for > example. > If we thought

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

September 29, 2016 5:31:53 PM To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum -1 There is history of abuse of proxies in AFRINIC so it is not simply the principle in question. These votes are meant to be a representation of public interest not sh

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Correct – I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for example. It is specifically limited to ELECTION voting – any election. Thanks Andrew On 29/09/2016, 19:03, "ALAIN AINA"

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 20:03, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of >> proxies per person. I don’t think that limit applies to anything else. > > Bylaws is very clear on this. The limit of 5 proxies per person applies

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

-1 There is history of abuse of proxies in AFRINIC so it is not simply the principle in question. These votes are meant to be a representation of public interest not shareholder or group interest so we should care more about ethics and the moral responsibility of having involved voters. As we

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Badru, I know you are involved in a (pretty successful) company. I presume there is a Board and shareholders? What limits does your organisation have on shareholders and proxies? Does your organisation impose any limits? I'm actually not aware of any company apart from AFRINIC that imposes any

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 11:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > > I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers > of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. > > Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. > > That's

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> _ From: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmu...@gmail.com<mailto:jacksonmu...@gmail.com>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44 Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum To: General Discussions of A

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: > I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers > of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. > > Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. > > That's why

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election. We need to get clarity on how proxies

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

+1 On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > +1 Mark, > > I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in > business and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other > such things hadn’t seen this fairly

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

+1 Mark, I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in business and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I’ve ever read. It’s the same way with shareholder meetings

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to > achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another > question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes. > > We need to explore a way that also addresses

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

016 at 12:19 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Hi Saul, On 28 Sep 2016 11:33, "Saul Stein" <s...@enetworks.co.za<mailto:s...@enetworks.co.za>> wrote: > A percentage is good.

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

munity-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage (of something or the other)? Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were to double in a year or two. Dewole. On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

that would count towards a quorum) -Original Message- From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dew...@tinitop.com] Sent: 28 September 2016 09:56 AM To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Is hard-