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

DANIEL NANGHAKA dndannang at gmail.com
Fri Jun 8 09:16:01 UTC 2018


Why can't this issue be sorted in court?
Don't we have a legal counsel?

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 11:36 AM Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear CEO and Legal Counsel,
>
>
> I wrote asking for some clarification which should come from your offices.
> Up to now I have not received any response. I would be most grateful if you
> could spare some few minutes from your heavy schedule to do justice to my
> questions?
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Marcus
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 2, 2018 10:32:18 AM
> *To:* mje at posix.co.za; General Discussions of AFRINIC; AfriNIC Discuss;
> Ornella GANKPA
> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for
> Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections
>
> 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 ?
>
> 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/20180608/23a3c403/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list