[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections
Ashok
ashok at afrinic.net
Wed May 30 06:58:36 UTC 2018
Dear Arnaud,
I thank you for sharing your thoughts on the issue under hand.
Ashok.
On 30/05/2018 01:56, Arnaud AMELINA 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.
>>
>> MoreoverArt 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 processas it stands today is the one which
>> was applied duringthe 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 requestedto
>> 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 prevailingconstitution 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
>>> <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
>>> <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
>>> <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
>>> <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
>> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20180530/a974b2d0/attachment.html>
More information about the Community-Discuss
mailing list