[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jun 7, 2018, at 22:03 , Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
> 
> On 7 June 2018 at 17:27, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jun 7, 2018, at 08:36 , Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net <mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> There lies the fallacy in your interpretation and your presumption to speak for Ashok.  
> 
> I do not speak for Ashok nor did I ever claim that I did. I do refer to Ashok’s own statements on the matter.
> 
> There lies one of the many fallacies in your accusations.
> 
> 
> You refer to Ashoks statements and interpret them rather let him clarify, so you are speaking for him, albeit unsolicited.

I did not interpret them. Sorry if you thought I did. I referred to them and stated my opinion which I believe is supported by his statements.

Really, must we engage in such sophistry and meta-discussion rather than addressing the actual substance of the situation?

>> Nowhere in our guidelines does it say that the “None of the Above” option receiving the plurality of the votes means a win in other than the case of a sole candidate.  On the other hand, the guidelines clearly describe the procedure to take in the case of candidates with the highest votes in a category.
> 
> Sigh… Yes, this is the literal, however illogical interpretation which you have repeatedly put forward. As I said, it is a legitimate literal interpretation of the guidelines regardless of it’s complete and utter failure to provide a logical interpretation or conclusion given what the guidelines do say.
> 
> 
> It is clear that you are are not reading guideline correctly as every reader knows that if one removes the “if statement”, the else defaults to “the candidate with highest win” where definition of candidate is by nomcom

It is clear that you are choosing to call my reading of the guidelines incorrect just as I call your reading of them illogical.

> 
> There is the “letter of the law” literal exact word for word meaning, which, if taken to reductio ad absurdum does, in fact, leave one with your conclusion.
> 
> Then there is the “spirit of the law” which is the clear and only logical conclusion one can draw about the intent of the guidelines.
> 
> Ashok’s previous statements on the matter and the posted and announced election results are consistent with the “spirit of the law” in this case. I agree that the guidelines should be clarified so that the letter of the law more clearly states the spirit of the law and lessens the probability of these wasteful reductio ad absurdum arguments. I do not believe any change to the result of the election is warranted.
> 
> I speak only for myself here. Obviously others may be of a different opinion.
> 
> More uninformed presumptions.  Frameworks for elections have to be in accordance with both the spirit and letter of the law.  

What in the above do you call a presumption?

> At this point, I will let Dr Tessa decide if he wants to take this further or not.

That would be a refreshing change.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20180607/acf2ec5e/attachment.html>