[Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Thu Sep 29 13:28:44 UTC 2016

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 limitations on shareholders regarding proxies. i.e. - It is AFRINIC
that is doing something unusual by having limitations.

ps. I was the cause of the limitations on proxies per candidate being
introduced within AFRINIC - a consequence of the last Cairo meeting. I
arrived with about 20 proxies.

On 29/09/2016 09:20, 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 why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election.  
> 
> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. 
> 
> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 28 Sep 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> 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 often, its enshrined in every company act I’ve ever read.
>>
>> It’s the same way with shareholder meetings – a shareholder may give a proxy to someone.
>>
>> A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person who gave it to them. 
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>    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 actively engaged member
>>> views.  The current system is open to some kind of abuse where
>>> through the use of proxies,  votes are cast on behalf of members who
>>> might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about.
>>
>>    If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that
>>    person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be
>>    100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow
>>    them, my issue is with them, no one else.
>>
>>    Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on
>>    certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for
>>    another year.
>>
>>    If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to
>>    them. I really don't see the problem.
>>
>>> We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to
>>> start putting our minds round how to find a solution.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" <dewole at tinitop.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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 wrote:
>>>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
>>>>>> <alan.barrett at afrinic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango
>>>>>>> <ondouglas at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too
>>>>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large.
>>>>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member
>>>>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data
>>>>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of
>>>>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our
>>>>>>> quorum requirement.
>>>>>> Sure, I can get those numbers.
>>>>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections.
>>>>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of
>>>>> members who attended the meetings.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2013    2014    2015    2016 E-Votes            58    59    49    183 On-Site Votes    45
>>>>> 66    77    62 TOTAL          103    125    126    245
>>>>>
>>>>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of
>>>>> 30 resource members in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan _______________________________________________ 
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ 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: +27.128070590  Cell: +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

-- 
Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at posix.co.za       Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4230 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160929/5dc6b752/attachment.p7s>