[Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Hountomey Jean Robert
jrhountomey at gmail.com
Wed Oct 5 00:56:42 UTC 2016
Excuses me but this discussion should be handled in a different way. It
should be more structured for a serious matter of business at that level.
AfriNIC does have a history and there is a reason where the limit was put
there, why the number 5 and also why electronic voting was introduced.
Having said that:
(1). I do remember that Legal has always been called for advice. Now Legal
also disagree.
(2). Where are the minutes from the previous meetings when we made those
decisions and why are we discussing a so serious business matter affecting
AfriNIC this way?
(3). Now that there are under the “assumption of legal mistake” made by the
community with the blessing of our Legal, the CEO and the Board, the best
way would have been to conduct a due diligence process gathering all the
facts, weighting the pros and cons including how we make sure to limit
disagreements, what controls can be put in place etc. Board you should
have done that before we move further in the discussion. Then a report
should have been presented to the community for informed decisions.
(4). In another world, with board members standing against a process that
has elected them, with the support of the CEO and legal, they should have
step down until we reached a consensus and organize new elections.
I suggest that we don't proceed backwards until we find the best way that
strengthen the AfriNIC that is dear to all of us.
Jean-Robert.
2016-10-04 13:26 GMT-07:00 Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com>:
> I said it was the last thing I will say on this.
>
> This is not a one to one dialogue and I will elaborate on this very
> trivial issue only if other members of the community think that what I have
> posted on this issue is not clear enough.
>
> Boubakar
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Alston <
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry – But what you are saying here still does not make sense to me, and
>> I really would like to understand your argument better.
>>
>>
>>
>> You are saying that limiting proxies limits vote buying because someone
>> can buy a signed piece of paper – ok – now lets look at electronic voting…
>>
>>
>>
>> What is preventing someone from paying someone to not look at the
>> candidates at all and log in, and say “vote for this person” – absolutely
>> nothing – the same thing occurs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I don’t believe that there is any situation where buying votes
>> in the context of AfriNIC 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 23:00
>> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
>> *Cc: *Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg>, "
>> community-discuss at afrinic.net" <community-discuss at 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 resource member who really doesn't care about how
>> AfriNIC is managed/governed and just wants to get its resources (and there
>> is a load of them if you look at meetings attendance and participation in
>> the mailing lists), it makes a huge difference between looking at
>> candidates profiles before logging in to vote and signing a pre-filled form.
>>
>> My last 2 cents on this. Members and the community should decide.
>>
>> B.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Andrew Alston <
>> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Speaking in my own personal capacity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Firstly – You don’t eliminate the risk of bought votes by limiting
>> proxies – it makes absolutely zero difference – because the person could
>> just as easily pay someone to vote a particular way electronically.
>>
>>
>>
>> Secondly – The reason that people give others proxies is often more than
>> just votes – the voting aspect of it is just another element of the proxy
>> that can be exercised at the same time. Companies may well want their
>> voices heard at an AGMM that they cannot be present at – so they issue a
>> proxy and the individual carrying the proxy then speaks on their behalf *
>> *AND** votes on their behalf
>>
>>
>>
>> Thirdly – If we determine that the current wording in the bylaws is
>> invalid or out of sync with the act or has giant problems with it – the
>> only way to fix that is to the fix the bylaws – and calling for this to be
>> fixed won’t help until someone actually proposes new wording to fix the
>> issue – and then sees if it will get the majority that is required for the
>> bylaw change. Personally, having read the responses on this list – I do
>> not see a consensus for a proxy limitation at all – so I have my personal
>> doubts that such a bylaw change would succeed – but it is still the only
>> way to actually rectify the problem. (Due to the fact that for all the
>> reasons I have stated, even if we take the act out of the picture, the
>> current bylaw limit is in my view invalid since proxies aren’t granted to
>> members, they are granted to individuals).
>>
>>
>>
>> Note: I personally will have zero issue if someone attempts to put 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 75% majority based on what
>> I have seen on this list so far – where I see absolutely no consensus for
>> such a limit.
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 22:44
>> *To: *Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg>
>> *Cc: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net" <community-discuss at 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 proxies one can carry, we won't eliminate this
>> risk, but we would at least reduce it.
>>
>> I don't understand the logic whereby somebody trusts a third party more
>> than him/herself? What is the electronic voting facility for?
>>
>> Yes, I know some will say everybody should be given the right to vote the
>> way he/she wants (paper ballot paper onsite, electronic voting or proxy).
>> No problem with that.
>>
>> But let's limit the risks by limiting the number of proxies one eligible
>> voter can carry. There were good reasons for putting the limit.
>>
>> Boubakar
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 7:07 PM, Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg>
>> wrote:
>>
>> "Talking as a community member in my personal capacity"
>>
>> +1 Mark,
>> I support the freedom for member to choose the way to cast his vote and
>> to remove the restriction on the total number of proxies that one member
>> can carry (if 100 members trust one specific member so they all have equal
>> rights to issue a proxy for him).
>> I understand that this restriction is applied only for members who has
>> the right to vote in the meeting as per article 12.12.viii , and not
>> applied on non-member person who assigned as a proxy by members as per item
>> 12.12.i & ii & vii the member is free to choose anyone as a proxy, I'm not
>> a lawyer but just read the articles of AFRINIC bylaws.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Haitham
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
>> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:54 PM
>> To: community-discuss at afrinic.net
>> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
>>
>>
>> I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any
>> African country based on English (or Dutch) law.
>>
>> French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates
>> and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to
>> be very similar the world over.
>>
>> I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way
>> in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without
>> restrictions) or via electronic voting.
>>
>> On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote:
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston
>> > <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
>> > <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> No Omo,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Please read what Ashok said – the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL
>> >> CHALLENGE**
>> >>
>> >
>> > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by
>> > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions.
>> >
>> > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best
>> > for members.
>> >
>> > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *From: *Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net <mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>>
>> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29
>> >> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
>> >> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
>> >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey <jrhountomey at gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:jrhountomey at gmail.com>>, "community-discuss at afrinic.net
>> >> <mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>" <community-discuss at afrinic.net
>> >> <mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
>> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> 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 to one per member to balance
>> >> things out.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston
>> >> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
>> >> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and
>> >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective
>> >> of what a company’s bylaws / constitution says.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> See fifth schedule section 6
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Andrew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey <jrhountomey at gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:jrhountomey at gmail.com>>
>> >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22
>> >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net
>> >> <mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>"
>> >> <community-discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:community-discuss at afri
>> nic.net>>
>> >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment -
>> quorum
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want
>> to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ?
>> >>
>> >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in
>> person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process
>> >>
>> >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
>> <mailto:mje at posix.co.za> wrote
>> >>
>> >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for
>> the Board
>> >>
>> >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP
>> Co-Chair is hands at
>> >>
>> >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret
>> ballot by
>> >>
>> >> those present.
>> >>
>> >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource
>> Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the
>> community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now
>> Governance Committee elections are by the Members.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Alan Barrett
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >>
>> >> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> >>
>> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> >> <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>> >>
>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afri
>> nic.net>
>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> —
>> >>
>> >> Omo Oaiya
>> >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN
>> >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224
>> >> Skype: kodion
>> >> http://www.wacren.net
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Community-Discuss mailing list
>> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
>> mje at posix.co.za Tel: <%2B27.128070590>+27.128070590 Cell:
>> <%2B27.826010496>+27.826010496
>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161004/eca68ae5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Community-Discuss
mailing list