<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">The problem, Paul, is that the bylaws conflict with themselves.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Under the present circumstances it is literally impossible to follow the strict letter of the bylaws because they do, indeed call for three year terms without allowing for the election of partial year terms (unnumbered paragraph after 13.5 and before 13.6). However, they also insist on the maintenance of the sequentiality of terms (13.6). However, they do not (as the gov com has erroneously suggested) allow for simply leaving the seat vacant. Indeed, 13.1 requires the board to call a meeting of members for the purpose of appointing directors where vacancies occur as a result of any of the following:</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>i.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Term expiration</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>ii.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Removal or resignation under Article 14</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>iii.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Disqualification of a director under Article 13.10</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>iv.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Death</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>v.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Filling of a casual vacancy in terms of article 13.14</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">However, as you point out, they also clearly call for elections and do not allow the board to appoint directors for arbitrary terms.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Finally, we have section 13.14 which allows the board to fill casual vacancies as a result of:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">14.1(ii)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Resignation</div><div class="">14.1(iii)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Removal by 2/3rds vote of other directors</div><div class="">14.1(iv)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Ceases to be a director pursuant to section 139 of the companies act</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Summarizing section 139 (<a href="https://www.mcci.org/media/35749/the-companies-act-2001.pdf" class="">https://www.mcci.org/media/35749/the-companies-act-2001.pdf</a>) it covers:</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(a) Resignation</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(b) Removal from office by board act or legal process</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(c) Disqualification by law (Section 133, under 18, over 70 (if a public company)</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(d) undischarged bankrupt</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(e) legally prohibited from being a director</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(f) not a natural person</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(g) adjudged to be of unsound mind</div><div class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>(h) no longer qualifies under the company’s constitution)</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So, as you can see, the Gov Com has chosen to follow all the bylaws except section 13.1. I’ve suggested a way forward that is a minor technical violation of the unnumbered paragraph between sections 13.5 and 13.6 in order to allow full compliance with 13.1 and 13.6. Further, virtually every other organization that has a staggered term structure as described here operates in the manner I have suggested with regard to electing persons to the remainder of terms to preserve the sequence of elections thereafter.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">This problem is compounded when the nominating committee goes about eliminating valid candidates and paring the selection down to just one candidate for a seat, thus effectively appointing that candidate rather than having an actual election. Even with just two candidates to choose from for a given office, this is a very limited choice and it allows the nominating committee and the board to stack the deck in the electoral process.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The injunction does not stop the AGMM, it only stops the election of the board.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 17, 2022, at 01:11 , Paul Hjul <<a href="mailto:hjul.paul@gmail.com" class="">hjul.paul@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">"I hope this puts to rest the ongoing debate and clears the way for a</div><div dir="auto" class="">successful AGMM." </div><div dir="auto" class="">Frankly this is the wrong attitude. The defects with the AGMM are varied and your "explanation" misses the simple point. The bylaws envisage that at each AGMM there is an election. At that election the seats that become vacant through term expiry must be held. Also at that AGMM must board filled vacancies be up for election. Also any vacancies that have otherwise arisen must be filled. There is no gap in the bylaws or need to depart from this principle. If a situation where to arise where there is a lack of directors then Mauritius law provides an answer that involves the courts. Following the bylaws does not disrupt the sequencing, the ONLY time sequencing would become an issue is if a person is given a new three year term when filling a vacancy. Basic reading of the bylaws makes it clear that the purpose of the language requiring a preservation of sequencing is to ensure that vacancies are filled to run with the original term. </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">We don't know - because Afrinic have not disclosed - what the court has ordered. What we do know is that the order will impact on the AGMM. We also know that the govcom didn't properly apply it's mind and/or erred in its recommendations and advise. </div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Paul</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div></div>[Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique<div dir="auto" class=""><div dir="auto" class="">DANIEL NANGHAKA dndannang at <a href="http://gmail.com/" class="">gmail.com</a></div><div dir="auto" class="">Tue May 17 05:42:36 UTC 2022</div><div dir="auto" class="">Previous message: [Community-Discuss] Will the AGMM still be held as scheduled, if not can an SGMM or further information and engagement session be held on those dates?</div><div dir="auto" class="">Next message: [Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique</div><div dir="auto" class="">Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]</div><div dir="auto" class="">Dear Community,</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">I want to thank the community for the comments and suggestions made after</div><div dir="auto" class="">the Governance Committee published its communique on the recommendations</div><div dir="auto" class="">made to the AfriNIC Board. GovCom plans to take all the suggestions and</div><div dir="auto" class="">comments into the next meeting and deliberate on them further. We take note</div><div dir="auto" class="">of the comments/recommendations made especially by Mr. Folayan and Mr.</div><div dir="auto" class="">DeLong.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">I would however like to remind the community about the provisions within</div><div dir="auto" class="">the current By-Laws that lead to the recommendations GovCom made to the</div><div dir="auto" class="">Board. There only provisions within the current By-Laws that would enable</div><div dir="auto" class="">a person to be a member of the AfriNIC Board.</div><div dir="auto" class="">Filling of a Casual Vacancy in pursuit of Article 13.14 of the By-Laws</div><div dir="auto" class="">Conduct of Elections with a full tenure of three (3) years in pursuit of</div><div dir="auto" class="">Article 13.5, Article 13.6, and Article 13.7 of the By-Laws</div><div dir="auto" class="">Either the Board, NomCom, ECom, GovCom, or even Members at an AGMM have the</div><div dir="auto" class="">power to vary the sequence seats for Directors are elected or the mandated</div><div dir="auto" class="">3-year tenure of an elected Director</div><div dir="auto" class="">The proposals suggested by Mr. Folayan and Mr. DeLong where the Board</div><div dir="auto" class="">conducts elections out of sequence for certain seats and for the remainder</div><div dir="auto" class="">of the unexpired term of the seat is likened to a bi-election mechanism.</div><div dir="auto" class="">Unfortunately, there are no such provisions for bi-elections within the</div><div dir="auto" class="">current By-Laws 2020. And as such, it would be a clear breach of the</div><div dir="auto" class="">provisions in the current By-Laws.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">In regards to the Eastern Africa seat, the Board restored the tenure of the</div><div dir="auto" class="">elected Director to the mandated 3-year term. They were no extensions of</div><div dir="auto" class="">the tenure as the Board did not have the mandate to reduce the tenure to</div><div dir="auto" class="">2-years in the first place.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">I hope this puts to rest the ongoing debate and clears the way for a</div><div dir="auto" class="">successful AGMM.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">regards,</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="auto" class="">Daniel</div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Community-Discuss mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net" class="">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>