[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections
Noah
noah at neo.co.tz
Sat Jun 2 10:58:00 UTC 2018
On Sat, 2 Jun 2018, 1:40 p.m. Marcus K. G. Adomey, <madomey at hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks Ornella and others who has been actively participating in this
> discussion to help clear this issue once for good.
>
> Can someone explains to me why “none of the above” votes were not
> counted for 2017 elections as it was done for election 2018 ?
>
+1 and am also curious to know why?
> https
> <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election>://
> <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election>
> www.afrinic.net
> <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election>
> /fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election
> <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2139-results-of-afrinic-agmm-election>
> - 2017
>
> https
> <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2391-results-of-afrinic-agmm-elections>
> ://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2391-results-of-afrinic-agmm-elections
> <https://www.afrinic.net/fr/news/2391-results-of-afrinic-agmm-elections>
> - 2018
>
>
>
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:34:13 PM
> *To:* mje at posix.co.za; General Discussions of AFRINIC; AfriNIC Discuss
> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for
> Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections
>
>
> 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:
>
> Owen,
>
> 2018-05-29 22:34 GMT+00:00 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>:
>
>> Arnaud,
>>
>> 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?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 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
>> appointing
>> 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.
>
>
> 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
> statement.
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Hopefully additional clarity can be achieved prior to the next election
>> and we won’t have to face this issue again. Personally, I like the idea of
>> having “none of the above” as an option in all cases.
>>
>
> Clarity and fairness is the outcome of the complaint regarding seat 2 here
> imho; for the rest we can agree to disagree.
>
>
> I agree to agree with Owen.
>
>
>
>>
>> Owen
>>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>>
>> On May 29, 2018, at 14:56 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Ashok as a lawyer you know that there is the law and spirit of the
>> law, please read bellow
>>
>> 2018-05-25 11:18 GMT+00:00 Ashok <ashok at afrinic.net>:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> I apologize for having missed your rejoinder to my mail.
>>>
>>
>> Despite the delays, we appreciate your response as the matter is of great
>> concern.
>>
>>
>>> Your first question regards the reason as to why the same principle has
>>> been applied to the election for Seat 2
>>> notwithstanding the fact that there were two candidates.
>>> My response is that an election cannot be run on different principles.
>>> In this particular election the option "none of the above " was
>>> introduced for the first time and everyone was aware of this and it
>>> applied to all the elections held on that day. The Election guidelines were
>>> amended to acomodate this option.
>>>
>>
>> Yes indeed and the elections guidelines explicitely addressed the case of
>> only a single candidate running for election and the option " none of the
>> above" in this case got more votes than the sole candidate but is very
>> silent in the case of multiple candidates running for elections with the
>> option "none of the above" getting more votes.
>>
>> Anytime elections involve the option "none of the above", there are
>> always clear rules on how the results are interpreted and the actions that
>> must be taken when the option "none of the above" get more votes than the
>> multiple candidates.
>>
>> It's not my intention to teach you something here, but it does look very
>> bizarre that the legal counsel never bothered to help the board to make
>> the guidelines unambiguous and conform to members expectations.
>>
>>
>>> Consequently this option has to be taken in consideration when
>>> finalising the results.
>>> Where there were two candidates. The options for voters were (1) yes for
>>> candidate (1)-((2) yes for candidate 2-(3) yes for non of the above.Each
>>> one is mutually exclusive.
>>> Each score to be counted separately. The majority for either option wins
>>> the day.
>>>
>>
>> Following your reasoning above and the guidelines which say the
>> candidate with the highest votes win, the members and community should then
>> accept "none of the above" as the elected candidate and seated although
>> "none of the above " did not go through Nomcom and was not listed on the
>> candidates slates published by Nomcom.
>>
>> Which means seat 2 should not be declared vacant to be filled by board.
>>
>> Filling seat 2 by board would constitute the violation of "none of the
>> above" rights and of our rules and thus expose us to legal litigation.
>>
>>
>>
>>> One should not create a fictitious majority by adding votes polled by
>>> (1) & (2) together. The real majority was to all intents and purposes the
>>> option which polled the most votes. There is no need to extrapolate or
>>> interpret.
>>>
>>
>> There is No fictitious majority being created. It was just an example of
>> how this case could have been interpreted just like you do have your own
>> interpretation.
>>
>> In many cases, abstention is compared to voters in order to decide how
>> to proceed with validating an election and counting results..
>>
>>
>>
>>> Where there was one candidate there were two options- Yes for the single
>>> candidate or yes for "non of the above"
>>>
>>
>> The case of a sole candidate is clear as per the guidelines and there are
>> no objections on seat 5 and 6 results.
>>
>>
>>> My reference to Art 10.2 was based on the decision of the members
>>> present at past AGMMs to have the option of rejecting a single candidate
>>> or to give their approval to the single candidate, This has occurred more
>>> than once.
>>>
>>
>> And once again, the case of a single candidate is handled as members
>> agreed to and not debated
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>>
>>
>>> Legal Counsel AFRINIC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24/05/2018 21:11, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear CEO and Chairman
>>>
>>> It looks like the Legal counsel has not responded to this query bellow
>>> regarding this very important issue about the recently concluded
>>> elections.
>>>
>>> Could you kindly remind him?
>>>
>>> Let us address this to a good conclusion in order to enforce the respect
>>> of our rules and processes.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Arnaud
>>>
>>> Le sam. 19 mai 2018 11:40, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> a écrit :
>>>
>>>> Dear Legal Counsel,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your input. Much appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Your statements reinforce the interpretation of section 9.2 of the
>>>> guidelines with the origin of the "none of the above" option in the
>>>> election process and how votes for this option are considered in the case
>>>> of one candidate running for election for a seat. [Last bullet point]
>>>>
>>>> Case in which the election becomes a "yes" or "no" vote for the only
>>>> candidate. This point is clear and accepted and the objection is not for
>>>> the results for seat 5 and 6.
>>>>
>>>> What has not been clarified is how the same principle came to be
>>>> applied for the elections for seat 2 which had two candidates running for
>>>> the seat, one of whom got higher votes than the other, with the total
>>>> number of members casting votes in excess of those opting out.
>>>>
>>>> You also referred to art 10.2 of the constitution but did not elaborate
>>>> on the precedence that occurred that has become an integral part of
>>>> our guidelines. As precedence automatically becomes part of the election
>>>> guidelines, it is important that we address issues which come up around the
>>>> election with care and unambiguously.
>>>>
>>>> Can you be so kind to clarify?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> Omo
>>>>
>>>> PS: Grateful to listers to please keep this thread confined to the
>>>> subject.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 May 2018 at 17:17, Ashok <ashok at afrinic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Members and Community,
>>>>> Mt views have been sought on the matter under reference.
>>>>> Please find same hereunder.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 17/05/2018 14:04, B
>>>>>
>>>>> *The Election Process and last AGMM.*
>>>>>
>>>>> The appointment of Directors is carried out during an AGMM of the
>>>>> Company –Art 13.1 of the constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> The election of the Directors is carried out in terms of Art 13.2 of
>>>>> the constitution which refers expressly to the election process approved by
>>>>> the Board.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover Art 10.2 of the Constitution refers to precedent applied
>>>>> during an AFRINIC election and which de facto become part of the election
>>>>> guidelines.
>>>>>
>>>>> The election process as it stands today is the one which was applied
>>>>> during the elections held during the last AGMM without any
>>>>> opposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is what it provides:
>>>>>
>>>>> *9.2 Paper Ballot on Election Day*
>>>>>
>>>>> The voting conducted during the Annual General Members' Meeting is
>>>>> carried out via paper ballots containing a list of candidate names and a
>>>>> ballot number. Prior to the vote, all members present or participants
>>>>> holding a proxy will be requested to register and validate their membership
>>>>> status.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Voters should only vote for one candidate per category/region.
>>>>> Each mark on a ballot paper represents one vote. A ballot with more than
>>>>> one mark per category/region will be considered spoilt, and not be counted.
>>>>> - The ballot paper should provide voters with the option to
>>>>> not vote for any candidate (a.k.a. "None of the Above").
>>>>> - This will be a secret ballot election. An inclusion of any
>>>>> personal data on the ballot paper will invalidate the vote and will be
>>>>> counted as spoilt.
>>>>> - Elections will be closed as soon as the last member or
>>>>> proxy present in the meeting room casts his/her vote. Candidates with the
>>>>> highest number of votes in each category will be declared winners.
>>>>> - In the event of a tie for an open position, voting for
>>>>> that position will be repeated (Only by paper ballot) the same day until
>>>>> there is a winner.
>>>>> - All open positions shall be subject to an election process
>>>>> even if there is only one candidate. In that event, if the option [none of
>>>>> the above] got more votes than the only candidate, then the seat shall be
>>>>> considered vacant and the Board will be requested to apply
>>>>> provisions of the Bylaws to temporarily fill the vacant seat
>>>>>
>>>>> The last amendment of the election guidelines introduced the voting
>>>>> option “ None of the Above”. –(Vide second bullet point above.)Those voters
>>>>> who have cast their votes for “ None of the Above” have done so in
>>>>> compliance with the prevailing constitution and these are thus
>>>>> valid votes. Every voter was aware of the new option.
>>>>>
>>>>> The election guidelines are clear as to what happens when the “ None
>>>>> of the Above” option has a majority.- (Vide last bullet point above.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The election guidelines must be read as a whole and all the provisions
>>>>> read together.
>>>>>
>>>>> Legal Counsel –AFRINIC
>>>>>
>>>>> 17.05.2018
>>>>> oubakar Barry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 interpret the results
>>>>> in the case there are more than one candidate and in the case there is only
>>>>> one candidate. These two cases are addressed separately and differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s important to hear from the Board and the Legal Counsel, as the
>>>>> elections can be challenged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please advise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Boubakar
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 -
>>>>>> https://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Elections will be closed as soon as the last member or proxy
>>>>>> present in the meeting room casts his/her vote. Candidates with the highest
>>>>>> number of votes in each category will be declared winners
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see from the list for West Africa that the candidate with the
>>>>>> highest number of votes should have been declared winner and this is Dr
>>>>>> Ousmane Tessa. (btw, Dr Adewale Adedokun needs his name spelt correctly)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Western Africa - Seat 2*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr Adelawe Abedekon - 43
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr Ousmane Moussa Tessa - 56
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of the above - 78
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Result: The seat is vacant*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The results from the other regions are valid and supported by the
>>>>>> following clause as they had one candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - All open positions shall be subject to an election process even
>>>>>> if there is only one candidate. In that event, if the option [none of the
>>>>>> above] got more votes than the only candidate, then the seat shall be
>>>>>> considered vacant and the Board will be requested to apply provisions of
>>>>>> the Bylaws to temporarily fill the vacant seat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can AfriNIC and the nomcom please clarify? We should not deprive Dr
>>>>>> Tessa of a rightful win …. especially in the circumstances we find
>>>>>> ourselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Omo
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>>>>>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Members-Discuss mailing listMembers-Discuss at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-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
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing listCommunity-Discuss at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
> --
> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africamje 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 listCommunity-Discuss at afrinic.nethttps://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/20180602/3873db77/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Community-Discuss
mailing list