[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections
Ashok
ashok at afrinic.net
Fri Jun 8 11:53:36 UTC 2018
Dear All,
I am the legal adviser of the company AFRINIC Ltd. Hence for me to act
in one way or the other
I need to get instructions from the company.As presently advised I have
not received any instructions
to seize the court for adjudicating on the matter.
For the record,I have already communicated my views to the community
on this matter ( vide my mail dated 17.05.2018).If any party wishes to
challenge these views, they are free
to take same to court. Obviously it cannot be me.
Regards
Legal Counsel-AFRINIC.
On 08/06/2018 13:30, Andrew Alston wrote:
>
> The answer to that is simple,
>
> For something to be sorted in a court of law – someone has to take it
> to court.
>
> Since the people who members of this community claim were
> disenfranchised by the vote have not taken it to court – and since
> there are many – who include the AFRINIC legal council based on his
> previous statements, who believe that the correct actions were taken –
> how is it going to be sorted in a court?
>
> If someone wishes to approach the Mauritian courts to adjudicate this
> – let them do so – but that requires someone willing to spend the
> money and resources to do that – and right now – I see a lot of people
> whining – but I don’t see anyone willing to dedicate the resources to
> doing that – and for AFRINIC to approach the court – when they have
> already stated clearly how they view the situation – would be
> equivalent to litigating against themselves. I hardly see that happening
>
> Andrew
>
> *From:*DANIEL NANGHAKA [mailto:dndannang at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 08 June 2018 12:16
> *To:* Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>;
> AfriNIC Discuss <members-discuss at afrinic.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for
> Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections
>
> 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:madomey at hotmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 2, 2018 10:32:18 AM
> *To:* mje at posix.co.za <mailto: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
> <mailto:honest1989 at gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:34:13 PM
> *To:* mje at posix.co.za <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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.
>
> o 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
> <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Members-Discuss mailing list
>
> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net
> <mailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Community-Discuss mailing list
>
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
>
> mje at posix.co.za <mailto:mje 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 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180608/7699f3d0/attachment.html>
More information about the Community-Discuss
mailing list