<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Title" content="">
<meta name="Keywords" content="">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Calibri;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">I think we also need to differentiate between quorum for vote vs quorum for membership. (Even if not normally – in the context of this discussion)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Proxies count btw – the rules on proxies are very clear – a person carrying a proxy represents the member who gave the proxy in every sense of the word.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Quorum for voting MUST include online voting in my view – every member that votes has still exercised their voice.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri">Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Calibri"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:black">Douglas Onyango <ondouglas@gmail.com><br>
<b>Reply-To: </b>General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, 28 September 2016 at 12:19<br>
<b>To: </b>General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss@afrinic.net><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p>Hi Saul,<br>
On 28 Sep 2016 11:33, "Saul Stein" <<a href="mailto:saul@enetworks.co.za">saul@enetworks.co.za</a>> wrote:<br>
> A percentage is good. However, I think that one needs to specify if a<br>
> quorum can include online participants and then <o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I would prefer we leave this out so that we have discretion to use onsite members, and revert to remote participants only if we can't make quorum from members onsite. This way we can reduce the burden of online verification to only those ocassions where
we don't have enough people onsite to meet the quorum requirement.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>>how to carer for the<br>
> voting...<br>
> As the stats show, a large number of people voted, but might night have<br>
> been present and a number of onsite votes were probably proxies (although<br>
> that would count towards a quorum)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Voting is already sufficiently catered for to include onsite and online so I dont feel any further intervention is warranted. I also think we should try not to tie these two things together as that might upset the current balance.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:<a href="mailto:dewole@tinitop.com">dewole@tinitop.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: 28 September 2016 09:56 AM<br>
> To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum<br>
><br>
> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage<br>
> (of something or the other)?<br>
><br>
> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were to<br>
> double in a year or two.<br>
><br>
> Dewole.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:<br>
> >> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett <<a href="mailto:alan.barrett@afrinic.net">alan.barrett@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango <<a href="mailto:ondouglas@gmail.com">ondouglas@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Hi Alan,<br>
> >>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but<br>
> I think 10% is too large.<br>
> >>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in<br>
> >>> the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something<br>
> >>> like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a<br>
> >>> pragmatic number for our quorum requirement.<br>
> >> Sure, I can get those numbers.<br>
> > Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. The<br>
> number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of members who<br>
> attended the meetings.<br>
> ><br>
> > 2013 2014 2015 2016<br>
> > E-Votes 58 59 49 183<br>
> > On-Site Votes 45 66 77 62<br>
> > TOTAL 103 125 126 245<br>
> ><br>
> > Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30<br>
> resource members in the future.<br>
> ><br>
> > Alan<br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>