[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections
walu.john at gmail.com
Sat Jun 2 06:14:07 UTC 2018
Just looking at this discussion thread and thinking:
**Does AfriNIC have an election appeal process?*
IF Yes-that should be invoked by the complainant and should kick in.
IF NOT- then someone should propose one, so that we update our the
Otherwise nominations were done, the slate published, elections held and
results officially announced (faulty or otherwise) at an AGM.
I believe formal change of an election can only occur through an Appeal
process - I am not sure email discussions are recognised as such.
I am not proposing we kill the discussion, but I am not sure if email
discussions can formally revert an election outcome - however intense and
valid those discussions maybe.
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Jun 1, 2018, at 10:34 , Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark
> My comments inline
> Le 30/05/2018 à 19:13, Mark Elkins a écrit :
> On 30/05/2018 19:20, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
> 2018-05-29 22:34 GMT+00:00 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>:
>> While I agree that additional clarity is needed and I agree that there is
>> some validity to the claim that none of the above MAY not have been a
>> legitimate choice to place on the ballot, I think we cannot go changing the
>> rules of the election and violating the expectations of the voters,
>> membership, and community after the election has run.
> Voters, membership and community are saying: <<a mistake has been made;
> let's fix it!>>
> And members are saying "We are happy with the outcome" (I am, anyway). The
> only folk that should be commenting on this are the voting membership.
> Why is the former board member and board chair so nervous about the scope
> of this discussion? This is a matter of concern for the community at
> large. This is not a remake of the elections. Or maybe, it is time to
> listen to the other 1409 members who did not vote?
> If you chose not to vote, then really, you’ve effectively asked us not to
> listen to you.
> Just my $0.02.
>> Nobody raised an objection to the presence of none of the above on the
>> ballot for seat 2 prior to or during the election.
> No one is raising objection even now on this option being on the ballot
> as the guidelines are clear on that. the issue at hand is the correct
> implementation of the guidelines as written.
>> Since there were more than enough voters who selected none of the above
>> to change the result among the remaining two candidates, it is not
>> legitimate to simply discard the none of the above votes and declare one of
>> those candidates a winner. Indeed, I would argue that is the worst possible
>> choice among all other options.
>> The other options as I see it are:
>> 1. Allow the board to treat the seat as vacant and appoint a board
>> member until the
>> next AGMM.
>> 2. Treat none of the above as a valid election result (in which case it
>> should be
>> considered the same for all 3 seats) and preclude the board from
>> anyone to the seat(s) until an election can be run.
>> 3. Treat none of the above as a valid election result only for seat 2
>> and preclude
>> the board from appointing seat 2 while still allowing them to appoint
>> seats 5
>> and 6.
>> As I see it, the best option is option 1. It allows the organization to
>> proceed with a full board until the next AGMM where a hopefully more
>> effective election can be accomplished.
>> I think option 2 is bad because it leaves the board precariously
>> short-handed with only 5 of the expected 8 members, including the CEO. (The
>> 3 elected members which remain, whoever is appointed to fill Haitham’s
>> vacancy, and the CEO).
>> The problem I have with option 3 is I have trouble justifying treating
>> the election of “none of the above” differently in this circumstance than
>> in the case of a single unopposed candidate. In both cases, more voters
>> felt that they didn’t want any of the options on the ballot and voted not
>> to elect any fo the candidates. The outcome is, IMHO, the same regardless
>> of the number of candidates and should be handled identically.
> Why? There are places in the world where "none of the above" is on ballot
> and has not effect on the results
> What would the point of that be then - or are people confusing "None of
> the above" with "Abstain" ?
> The guidelines say:
> "The ballot paper should provide voters with the option to not vote for
> any candidate (a. k.a. "None of the Above")"
> It does not say to "reject all the proposed candidate".
> It says to not vote for any candidate and the guidelines states that ,
> the candidate with the highest votes wins.
> Let us stop this harmful interpretation.
> Wow… This takes sophistry to a new level. Regardless of the polite
> language used in the guidelines, it is an obvious implication that the
> intent is to provide an option to affirmatively vote against all of the
> candidates on the slate.
> Otherwise, abstention (simply leaving all choices for that office blank)
> would suffice.
> The specific affirmative act of selecting “none of the above” must be
> interpreted as if “none of the above” were, in fact, a candidate. In the
> event where “none of the above” gains the most votes, it is completely
> unfair to the plurality of voters which selected that choice to turn around
> and then seat one of the other candidates in the race.
> I agree that we should learn from this event and clarify this in the
> guidelines, but the fact that there are those who would argue to
> disenfranchise the plurality of voters in this election by stripping them
> of their right to block the seating of candidates which were so thoroughly
> opposed is, IMHO, absurd.
> and candidates with the highest votes wins. It is matter of the elections
> rules. In the current situation, the guidelines are clear and explicit
> on how we should handle the results. So let follow it and engage on
> discussions for amending the rules if we see need to do so.
> I was on the Board when this was introduced (6 or so years back?). Its
> doing exactly what it was intended to - that if a person does not like
> *anyone* on the list of choices - the member can instead select "none of
> the above". Why does this seem so hard to grasp?
> Can you point to board meeting minutes, resolutions or any other
> document which support your statement? Some seems to refuse to read the
> guidelines and just regurgitate whatever works for them.
> The guidelines are clear and may have not been written to match your
> A reasonable interpretation of the language as written without
> extraordinary mental gymnastics supports this statement.
> Your interpretation of the guidelines is absurd in the extreme. I don’t
> know if that’s because you are reading the literal meaning of the words
> individually and outside of the context or if it is because the logical
> meaning of the words taken as a whole fails to support your position.
> Regardless, it is clearly the “spirit of the law” and the clear intent of
> the words in the guidelines when taken in context to allow voters to
> express an affirmative opposition to the entire slate of candidates.
> Your interpretation would reduce it to mere abstention, in which case
> there would be no point of putting “none of the above” on the ballot
> because that can be achieved by merely leaving that office blank when
> filling out the ballot.
> I also fail to understand why this is fine when there is only one natural
> person on the list but not fine when there is more than one natural person
> on the list.
> One explanation:
> When I only have one candidate, the vote becomes a "yes" or " no" vote . I
> need a way to count the "no" vote.
> a- change the ballot to "yes" or " no", "in favor" or "against "
> b- use natural candidate and " none of the above"
> We were using b)
> Sure, but there’s no reason that can’t work the exact same way in a
> multiple-candidate race and that was the clear expectation of the voters in
> this case.
> a) Candidate A
> b) Candidate B
> c) None of the above
> If you wanted to abstain, you didn’t choose any of those options and left
> that part of the ballot blank.
> If you wanted to express a desire that neither candidate A nor candidate B
> be seated, then voting for option c is the correct action.
> That’s what happened. In fact, a plurality of voters chose option c. It’s
> quite clear they did that not with the intent of abstaining, but with the
> intent that neither candidate A nor candidate B be elected.
> Why is it so hard for you to accept this?
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community-Discuss