[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