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

[AfriNIC-rpd] NomCom at AFRINIC-16

gift gift at
Tue May 22 08:55:51 UTC 2012

Thanks Adiel. A few comments/clarifications.

On 22/05/2012 09:30 AM, Adiel Akplogan wrote:
> a) How do we handle the situation where we have the same number of candidate than the number of seat to fill?
> a.1) For Board election I think this has been addressed in [Section 8] of the election process where it says "The ballot paper shall provide an option not to select any of the eligible candidates." - The famous "None of the above" option. This means in any case a vote should take place. If "None of the above" win, then we consider that members have rejected the candidate(s) and in such case Article [11.7] of the current bylaws should be used. Now if the Director already in office doesn't want to continue serving on board, then I guess the Board should take this back to the community ... I guess through another round of election process that will start after the face to face meeting (keeping the unfilled seat vacant until the next election).
If a director resigns mid term, the directors are allowed (bylaws and 
Companies Act) to fill the vacancy until the next AGM.
> a.2) for the PDP-WG co-chairs selection, there is no provision for such a case. We need to address that and the question I have for you is: why not use the same mechanism? And if there is a situation that the process doesn't cover, request the PDP-WG to select co-chair(s) from the floor as interim measure while reopening the Open selection process till an election actually take place.
I guess you mean the Co- Chairs can be empowered to fill the vacancy 
post the meeting. Otherwise anything (including volunteers and 
nominations from the floor) that is done at or during the meeting 
naturally creates debate and potentially requires a members' vote. I 
addition, the board has the authority to fill casual vacancies within 
itself and any of the committees.
> b) Number of Proxies:  This debate is not new and has raised many questions in 2008 and 2009. Even some of the RIR representatives at these meetings wrote to the Board to complain about the perception that was given during our elections (Which I agree is understandable). The fact is that, as Candidate if you have a proxy, it is clear to all for who you are going to vote. So if a candidate manage to collect (by all means) sufficient proxies for himself, he will publicly vote himself onto the Board (it is to note that Proxy form does not mention who the member appointing the proxy prefer to vote for). That in fact, somehow defeat the whole purpose of secret ballot as everybody can easily deduct the result of the vote. I must add that, at the time of the past discussion, there was limited participation and for instance over 30 votes, one candidate carries 17 Proxies.  After a long discussion on the Board it was agreed that, while this is not against any rule, it may give a wrong perception to the election process. So as from last year the process has been changed to limit the number of proxy that a candidate can carry to only ONE. This also prevent candidates to lobby for proxies ... which can be seen different from lobbying for votes and participation by members directly. Imagine an improbable situation (due to the scale of national election) where in a presidential or even local election, a candidate managed to convince let say even 30% of the voters to be sick the day of the election and ask them to allow him alone to vote for all of them by procuration. Yes it may be allowed by the law but many will find it potentially unfair.
> I would like to point out that In the new bylaws proposal, we went a bit further to even limit the number of proxies that a member can carry to 5. All this has also to be read in the spirit of the use of an e-voting platform. I don't however think that we can completely get ride of Proxies.
There is nothing wrong with proxies as they are a legal instrument 
because they are provided for in the bylaws and in the Act.  As long as 
they are legitimately given, this is how companies operate all over and 
popular mandate can be expressed through proxy. What we could do is to 
outlaw canvassing for proxies by members. Let the initiative rest with 
the member giving the proxy bearing in mind that there is a company law 
obligation to advise members to nominate proxies if they so wish. For 
this reason let canvassing for proxies lead to disqualification. But if 
a candidate just lobbies for votes and members who are in agreement with 
his/her popular manifesto decide to give proxies there should be nothing 
wrong. Would it be proper to deny the members such freedom? Perharps 
there is nobody else other than the candidate whom they can trust to 
vote in the manner they wanted meaning they are disenfranchised. We need 
to consider this matter carefully lest we deal with symptoms.
> d) Sub-Regional election vs. Regional. It is important for us to remind ourself that Board members are elected from a region to serve the whole Africa region on the Board. They are not elected to serve their region but the Registry which serve the whole region. That is why their legitimacy is determined by all the members' vote. AFRINC aimed at showing a united region (united by technology) we should resist in failing into regionalism. We have suffered so much in this region from division that we should fight all kind of division by all means.
The company is one undivided unit. We must be looking for the best 
people from each region. The regions are already a good basis for 
regional representation. Let the rest be on merit.


Information Technology Integrators

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

More information about the RPD mailing list