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

Thu May 17 12:24:52 UTC 2018

If we read the bye laws as they are written now.  To me it would actually mean that many people did not like the slate offered but an election happened and there were candidates with high number of votes.

So actually three candidates had high numbers of votes. Though many people did not like the slate.

We actually had an election of members.

Sent from my iPhone

On 17 May 2018, at 13:16, Komi Elitcha <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com<mailto:kmw.elitcha at gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear Community,

Having “none of above” on the ballot is not the issue.

The real issue is about the candidate with the highest number of votes .

And this is what section 9.2 says:

*
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.

*

2018-05-17 9:08 GMT+00:00 Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za<mailto:mje at posix.co.za>>:

I disagree with your first paragraph. I was a Board Member when "None of the Above" was introduced. I was also often on NomCom. The simple idea behind "None of the Above" is simply that - None of the above - that's everyone (natural persons) listed on that ballot. It's not just for the case where there is only one name on the ballot.

On 17/05/2018 06:57, Andrew Alston wrote:
I concur with what Owen has said,

While I do not dispute the none of the above option may have been incorrectly on the ballot – it was there – and electronic voting was open for a period of 2 odd weeks before the AGMM, and during the AGMM, and this point was never raised.  As a result, people chose an option that was on the ballot – had it not been there, they may have chosen the other candidate, and as such, that could change the result of the entire election for that seat.   Therefore, it would be entirely inappropriate to choose the next highest candidate – and would disenfranchise the 80 odd people who were under the impression they were voting for an entirely legitimate option.

As such, if we wish to dispute the result of the election a full week after it has happened, and despite two weeks of time to dispute it when we were all fully aware of what was on the ballot, the only option is to nullify the election for that seat and hold it again at the next AGMM – which leaves us back at the status quo.

I do think this may be a good time to make certain observations to this community so that we can start a discussion about the process moving forward.

  1.  We cannot elect directors at an SGMM – section 13.4 of the bylaws makes explicit reference to the Annual General Members Meeting, and this is further enforced by the fact that the Annual General Members Meeting term that is used is explicitly defined in the definitions.
  2.  We are not quorate for an AGMM – Section 12.10.ii is explicit in setting the quorum and makes reference to “directors elected to represent a region” – as such, an AGMM to elect directors cannot happen – and this precludes using directors appointed under clause 13.14 to meet the quorum requirements (they are not elected directors, they are appointed directors, those are entirely different things)
  3.  AFRINIC therefore is required to pass a special resolution at an SGMM via super-majority vote to amend the bylaws to allow for election of directors outside of an AGMM.
  4.  There is an alternative to option C in the fact that a special resolution could be passed without an SGMM occurring – however – this would require 75% of the *entire* member base to vote in favour (not 75% of voting members), effectively meaning you would require roughly 1130 votes in favour to do this – which I hardly think is practical.

The question therefore becomes – what special resolution would members be prepared to vote in favour of – because a special resolution *has* to happen to get us quorate again – and failing that – AFRINIC will not be able to hold an AGMM – and will not be able to meet its statutory requirements come next year.  I also point out that thanks to clause 7.7 of the bylaws – the board itself *cannot* adjust the bylaws any longer in unilateral form.

Andrew

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
Sent: 17 May 2018 04:27
To: Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net><mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>
Cc: community-discuss <community-discuss at afrinic.net><mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>; AfriNIC Discuss <members-discuss at afrinic.net><mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

I would argue that even if none of the above were incorrectly on the ballot, in such a case the election should be declared invalid in its entirety and rerun. The votes for none of the above are greater than the difference between the other two candidates and to act as you suggest would be to disenfranchise all of those voters.

Owen

On May 16, 2018, at 10:24, 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.

     *   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

--
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

--
--KE

_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto: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/20180517/80199fcf/attachment.html>