<div dir="ltr">Just looking at this discussion thread and thinking:<div><br></div><div><b><i><font color="#ff0000">*Does AfriNIC have an election appeal process?</font></i></b></div><div><br></div><div>IF Yes-that should be invoked by the complainant and should kick in.</div><div>IF NOT- then someone should propose one, so that we update our the Election Guidelines.</div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise nominations were done, the slate published, elections held and results officially announced (faulty or otherwise) at an AGM. </div><div><br></div><div>I believe formal change of an election can only occur through an Appeal process - I am not sure email discussions are recognised as such. </div><div><br></div><div>I am not proposing we kill the discussion, but I am not sure if email discussions can formally revert an election outcome - <span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">however intense and valid those discussions maybe</span>.</div><div><br></div><div>walu.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><br><div><span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jun 1, 2018, at 10:34 , Ornella GANKPA <<a href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com" target="_blank">honest1989@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_8193177552812613272Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p><font color="#330099">Hi Mark</font></p><p><font color="#330099">My comments inline</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_8193177552812613272moz-cite-prefix">Le 30/05/2018 à 19:13, Mark Elkins a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_8193177552812613272moz-cite-prefix">On 30/05/2018 19:20, Arnaud AMELINA
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Owen, <br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2018-05-29 22:34 GMT+00:00 Owen
DeLong <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank">owen@delong.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">Arnaud,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Voters, membership and community are saying:
<<a mistake has been made; let's fix it!>><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330099">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?<br></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>If you chose not to vote, then really, you’ve effectively asked us not to listen to you.</div><div><br></div><div>Just my $0.02.</div><div><span class=""><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font color="#330099">
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nobody raised an objection to the presence of
none of the above on the ballot for seat 2 prior to
or during the election.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The other options as I see it are:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>1.<span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Allow
the board to treat the seat as vacant and appoint a
board member until the</div>
<div><span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>next
AGMM.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>2.<span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Treat
none of the above as a valid election result (in
which case it should be</div>
<div><span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>considered
the same for all 3 seats) and preclude the board
from appointing</div>
<div><span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>anyone
to the seat(s) until an election can be run.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div><span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>3.<span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Treat
none of the above as a valid election result only
for seat 2 and preclude</div>
<div><span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>the
board from appointing seat 2 while still allowing
them to appoint seats 5</div>
<div><span class="m_8193177552812613272gmail-m_-1039780601104480525Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>and
6.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Why? There are places in the world where "none of
the above" is on ballot and has not effect on the
results <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
What would the point of that be then - or are people confusing
"None of the above" with "Abstain" ?<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330099">The guidelines say:<br>
"The ballot paper should provide voters with the option to not
vote for any candidate (a. k.a. "None of the Above")"<br>
It does not say to "reject all the proposed candidate". <br>
It says to not vote for any candidate and the guidelines states
that , the candidate with the highest votes wins.<br>
Let us stop this harmful interpretation.</font><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>Wow… This takes sophistry to a new level. Regardless of the polite language used in the guidelines, it is an obvious implication that the intent is to provide an option to affirmatively vote against all of the candidates on the slate.</div><div><br></div><div>Otherwise, abstention (simply leaving all choices for that office blank) would suffice.</div><div><br></div><div>The specific affirmative act of selecting “none of the above” must be interpreted as if “none of the above” were, in fact, a candidate. In the event where “none of the above” gains the most votes, it is completely unfair to the plurality of voters which selected that choice to turn around and then seat one of the other candidates in the race.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree that we should learn from this event and clarify this in the guidelines, but the fact that there are those who would argue to disenfranchise the plurality of voters in this election by stripping them of their right to block the seating of candidates which were so thoroughly opposed is, IMHO, absurd.</div><div><br></div><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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? </blockquote>
<font color="#330099">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.<br>
The guidelines are clear and may have not been written to match
your statement</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>A reasonable interpretation of the language as written without extraordinary mental gymnastics supports this statement.</div><div><br></div><div>Your interpretation of the guidelines is absurd in the extreme. I don’t know if that’s because you are reading the literal meaning of the words individually and outside of the context or if it is because the logical meaning of the words taken as a whole fails to support your position. Regardless, it is clearly the “spirit of the law” and the clear intent of the words in the guidelines when taken in context to allow voters to express an affirmative opposition to the entire slate of candidates.</div><div><br></div><div>Your interpretation would reduce it to mere abstention, in which case there would be no point of putting “none of the above” on the ballot because that can be achieved by merely leaving that office blank when filling out the ballot.</div><div><br></div><div><span class=""><blockquote type="cite"><div><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font color="#330099">.<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite">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.<br>
</blockquote>
<font color="#330099">One explanation:<br>
When I only have one candidate, the vote becomes a "yes" or " no"
vote . I need a way to count the "no" vote.<br>
a- change the ballot to "yes" or " no", "in favor" or "against "<br>
b- use natural candidate and " none of the above"<br>
We were using b)<br></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span>Sure, but there’s no reason that can’t work the exact same way in a multiple-candidate race and that was the clear expectation of the voters in this case.</div><div><br></div><div>a) Candidate A</div><div>b) Candidate B</div><div>c) None of the above</div><div><br></div><div>If you wanted to abstain, you didn’t choose any of those options and left that part of the ballot blank.</div><div>If you wanted to express a desire that neither candidate A nor candidate B be seated, then voting for option c is the correct action.</div><div><br></div><div>That’s what happened. In fact, a plurality of voters chose option c. It’s quite clear they did that not with the intent of abstaining, but with the intent that neither candidate A nor candidate B be elected.</div><div><br></div><div>Why is it so hard for you to accept this?</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><br></font></span></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/community-<wbr>discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>