Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] NomCom at AFRINIC-16

gift gift at
Mon May 21 15:29:31 UTC 2012

  I was not at the elections and will never know the full details of 
what was deemed objectionable. For me what Mark has described is direct 
and blind lobbying to any one who is a potential voter. This is 
perfectly normal unless otherwise expressly forbidden in the election 
rules. The onus is on the person canvassed to respond positively or not. 
I am not sure that we can do away with the issue of unsolicited 
approaches whether electronic or physical whose response is always 
mixed. In the end the community has to decide what works best (election 
code), the sooner the better otherwise we will end up fighting against 
the creativity which our technology is promoting and largely uses 
contact addresses.

We must avoid the tendency to be reactive as a few issues have taken us 
by surprise, firstly the proxy issue in Egypt now the electronic 
lobbying. We need to strengthen our sytems and be more proactive as our 
democracy evolves.


On 21/05/2012 04:38 PM, Mark Elkins wrote:
> We could look at just Electronic Voting - nothing else.
> The 'polls' could be opened once the candidate is open  (a few weeks
> before the election) and then close them as part of the Election Day
> process.
> The ceremony would be "OK - Voting has closed...." and then having the
> Key Trustees going up, inserting their USB Keys with their part of the
> unlocking code, and Voilà, Results appear on the screen. For those at
> the meeting with voting rights who don't have a Laptop (is there anyone
> like that any more), they could access the voting system from the
> terminal room.
> The problem in some people's minds is how people are petitioned in order
> to get them to vote in one's favour. Years ago as a child, I can
> remember working for my Dad, who wanted to be a local councilperson. We
> went from door to door posting paper flyers and if people where home,
> chatting to them. He was successful.
> Apparently - this might be illegal in AfriNIC circles?
> I pulled off addresses from my own peering page, that is - I collected
> the addresses myself in 'one on one' contacts with people over time -
> and now I can't use them to make contact for election purposes???
> On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 08:25 -0400, McTim wrote:
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Jean Robert Hountomey
>> <jrhountomey at>  wrote:
>>>> I don't believe limiting number of proxies  per  individual will change
>>>> anything. I'm of the opinion we limit voting per zones i.e. If we are
>>>> electing board members from North, then we let Afrinic members from
>>>> North select who they want to represent them. Lets eliminate such
>>>> situations where West Africans are represented by a member whose
>>>> majority of his/her votes comes from South.
>>> I understand your point but I do believe that a candidate can receive
>>> support from anybody in the continent.
>>> My understanding of the current election/voting process is that proxies are
>>> needed because of the physical presence requirement.
>>> E-voting will allow members who cannot be present at the meeting to vote.
>>> E-voting will then solve the proxy issue and there will be
>>> no need for proxies anymore.
>> exactly.. so we implement e-voting AND eliminate proxy voting in the by-laws!!
>>> In case AfriNIC choose to use the two voting systems (e-voting and physical)
>>> members present at the meeting will vote and those non present will use
>>> e-voting. There will be no need for proxies in this case too.
>> fine by me!!
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at

Gift Shava
Financial Controller

Information Technology Integrators

Office: +26739334779, Mobile: +26772115870
Fax: +2673170457

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list