Search RPD Archives
election controversy? - Re: Handover to new PDWG co-chairs [AfriNIC-rpd]
kseeburn at umail.utm.ac.mu
Thu Jun 16 02:37:47 UTC 2011
Thanks. I totally agree. We definitely learn from these and we need to grow from it.
A lesson to be learned and surely look at improving our policies and procedures for elections is a growing must.
This typical case was my apprehension last year with only one candidate for elections. We had commonly decided although automatically elected. The nomcom then had prefered and certainly i prefered to go by roberts rule of order and still gave the voting / deciding part to the community as whilst having an automatically elected candidate but the community could refute the candidate. We prefered to give the voice to the community.And i think the process was much more appreciated than just saying we declare elected. But these are different schools of thoughts. I guess we have to move and adopt this as a procedure despite one candidate situation.
I guess it does make pretty much sense to close the issue whilst not forgetting that we need to act on the tasks / mistakes which is very human and improve on them and writting down the guidelines.
A fact to be noted by all and an appreciation of democracy within the community whist we are able to talk about it. So yes nomcom should take note and recommend.
On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:04 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> @ Kris, from my own point of view, the main issue with the election was that the community was not given the opportunity to exercise their voting rights and results were announced. So basically what happened was no election but selection (looking at it from the community side of it). Though its also obvious that considering the open positions and the candidates available the results would have still been the same, but if it was the community that made that choice, it brings a feeling of ultimate inclusion in the election process to the entire community and that is democracy. :-)
> This senerio is most likely not going to happen in nearest future but its just good for the electoral committee to learn the fact that in a community based environment a slightest oversight could cause an unforeseen result as this. Applying this principal for me, will go a long way to shaping the future activities and decision making proceeds of the nomcom. On this note i suggest we don't drag this anymore further...close the chapter "is the word" :-)
> My 2 Cents
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Kris Seeburn <kseeburn at umail.utm.ac.mu> wrote:
> general question here is that : Are we talking about "vice de procedures" or in english "procedural error" ? Sorry people i was not at the elections but am trying to undedstand.
> Perhaps "ashok" can give his legal opinion on this situation despite the fact that the election has been done. Although from what i am understanding....a general question arise : are we questioning the election of the two candidates or are we questioning the mandate that was allotted to the two persons?
> Kris Seeburn
> On Jun 15, 2011, at 11:05 PM, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:
> > At 07:57 AM 6/15/2011, gift wrote:
> >> Nomcom is not sure how the issue of the election has come up during the hand over process.
> > Dr Paulos asked about the legitimacy of the PDWG Co-chairs. I congratulated
> > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda and Tim McGinnis on their election previously ( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001688.html ). I have also mentioned that I do not have any issue with the appointment of the two new PDWG co-chairs ( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001772.html ).
> >> However, since this issue has been brought up publicly, in the spirit of transparency, we will endeavor to comment so that the record is placed straight and also to give an official version of what transpired to the incoming PDWG Co Chairs and other members who were not at AfriNIC 14. There are no legitimacy issues arising from the election as a
> > As Tim McGinnis was participating remotely, he probably knows what happened during the PDWG election part of the open public policy meeting. Trevor Mwangi raised an interesting point about remote participants registering their protest ( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001782.html ).
> >> final poll was carried without any dissension. It is also incorrect for S. Moonesamy to suggest that members were denied their voice at the meeting:
> >> "I hope that any future NomCom will respond to community
> >> feedback instead of ignoring objections from the floor."
> > The quoted text does not include any suggestion that "members were denied their voice at the meeting".
> >> concerned there are no outstanding issues relating to the concluded PDWG Co Chair elections as was witnessed during the meeting hence the formal announcement by the ACEO. The job of Nomcom is to work with the membership to deliver a democratic election and in the process to deal with any arising challenges. In the end a member's verdict was delivered. We should also accept that what transpired at the elections is a learning opportunity to further deepen the community's democratic and corporate governance systems. Nomcom will accordingly be making the necessary recommendations in its report on the elections.
> > There isn't any "membership" for the PDWG. "It is expected that the NomCom will oversee all open elections conducted by AfriNIC during a given year, namely Board Seats, Policy Working Group Chairs and NRO-NC representatives". "A democratic election" is not about displaying the list of candidates on a slide and announcing the results within a few seconds on the next slide ( http://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-14/images/stories/af14_slides/Day%201/Gift%20Shava%20-%20PDWG%20co-chairs%20election.pdf ). Fortunately, participants came to the microphone and objected to that.
> > I don't think that the community has a need for a "democratic and corporate governance system". If Frank and Andrew can agree on whether questions are constructive ( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001781.html ), Sunday Folayan can walk to the microphone and have his objections taken into account, Graham Beneke and Trevor Mwangi can ask questions without being present at the meeting, J. Walubengo and Mark Elkins can come to the microphone like any other participant, it is left to the community to appreciate whether it is an open and fair process where people can discuss and reach consensus.
> > It is up to the community to determine whether the message posted at https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2011/001791.html written by Gift Shava, Arbogast Fabian and Hago Dafalla is a fair representation of the events.
> > Regards,
> > S. Moonesamy
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> Seun Ojedeji,
> you don't need a hero to succeed on the field....you need a team!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD