[Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Fri Sep 30 17:44:14 UTC 2016

And just to clarify – the reason I want the proxy limitation rule removed is because I do believe that our bylaws need to be consistent with the jurisdictional rules in which we operate – not the hypothetical juristriction we may operate in one day if we can ever find sufficient majority to vote for a change.

I have long believed that rule is illegal – I have long believed it is unfair on the members – and unlike bylaw changes proposed now – there was *NEVER* a formal vote to insert that clause that meets the bylaw change requirements as they stand today – and I question if it would have ever passed the threshold when it was inserted – but we will never know.

I also point out that there is precedent for us to change rules that have been found to be legally dubious or been found to disenfranchise members.  Please refer back to the debate that was had over company stamps being required on proxies.  After it was proved that this would eliminate the ability of companies who had no stamps – because their jurisdictions did not require such – the rules were changed and the requirement for such stamps was removed from the election guidelines.

Let us try to be more inclusive – and not attempt to use things to influence results.

Andrew

From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:36
To: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>
Cc: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

Badru –

I am very aware there are many jurisdictions and I’ve heard this argument from you sooooo many times.

You’re welcome to try and get consensus to move AfriNIC to another juristriction and under the bylaws you could probably even pass a special resolution to do it if you could get those kinda numbers – but I know how I would be voting in this regard – but of course if you get a 75% majority for it – great.

What amuses me however is the view that people want to restrict what members can and can’t do because they didn’t like the outcome of a particular scenario – I have yet to see a single shred of conclusive evidence of proxies being used in any way that is outside of the rules – I have seen plenty of whining that its impacted things in ways that certain people didn’t like – but they are very different things.

I associate this type of changing of the rules and adding restrictions in my mind with what we have seen in so many parts of the world when an incumbent or someone doesn’t want to accept the will of a clear majority vote – change the rules…

It’s all the same thing in my eyes – pure and unadulterated hegemony – and I’m sick of it.

If a member wishes to give his proxy to someone – anyone – he has a right to do so.
If that person uses that proxy in a way the member never intended – the member can take that up with the person holding the proxy – it is the members responsibility.
If 90% of the members choose to trust one individual carry their votes – because that is where their faith lies – that is their choice – their right – and their responsibility to deal with the outcomes.

That is democracy – this blatant and transparent attempt to restrict a member’s rights in the name of “stopping abuse” – when there is no concrete evidence is a joke.  It is undemocratic, it is an insult to the intelligence of the members who sign those proxies, it is transparent manipulation of the system to attempt to achieve a result through the influencing of who can do what – and it is a joke.

This is how I see it – others my disagree – but these are the views that I stand by

Andrew

From: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>
Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:13
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

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 afrinic.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 afrinic.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160930/1d394a0d/attachment-0001.html>