Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

+1. walu. On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 9:58 PM Bope Christian wrote: > Dear AFRINIC Members and Community, > > There has been much discussion about the results of the elections held > during the AGMM on 10 May 2018, and associated processes. > > I will try to answer these questions: > > >- What

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

Hello, > It is a widely-accepted principle that, if a written process is silent on > some point, then the intent should be considered. [...] > The Board recognises the objections that were raised a few days after the > election, on Wednesday 16 May 2018, but notes that no objections were

[Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

Dear AFRINIC Members and Community, There has been much discussion about the results of the elections held during the AGMM on 10 May 2018, and associated processes. I will try to answer these questions: What is the election process? What happened in previous years? What happened in 2018? What

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

Fair enough But since we follow the law in its most literal meaning, it states clearly that the CANDIDATE with the highest vote will be declared the winner If we want the change this law, i believe that there is a procedure for that, but at the moment when the elections were held this was the

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

Sent from my iPhone On 18 May 2018, at 08:54, Saul Stein > wrote: >If we actually want to make none of the above a candidate it should be clearly >stated in the bye laws. It is after all the will of the community. Then let’s put it

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

>If we actually want to make none of the above a candidate it should be clearly stated in the bye laws. It is after all the will of the community. ___ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

Sent from my iPhone On 17 May 2018, at 19:42, Uffa Modey via Community-Discuss > wrote: * Candidates with the highest number of votes in each category will be declared winners None of the above was not a candidate

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

- Candidates with the highest number of votes in each category will be declared winners None of the above was not a candidate Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:29 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: ___

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

iscuss <community-discuss@afrinic.net>; AfriNIC Discuss <members-disc...@afrinic.net> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections I would argue that even if none of the above were incorrectly on the ballot, in such a case the election should b

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

I would argue that even if none of the above were incorrectly on the ballot, in such a case the election should be declared invalid in its entirety and rerun. The votes for none of the above are greater than the difference between the other two candidates and to act as you suggest would be to

[Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

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 -