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

Election process (was re: [rpd] AFRINIC Board Elections - 2014: Call for Nominations)

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at
Sat May 10 11:42:46 UTC 2014

Hello Mark,

First considering that i wrote to chair (you) and nomcom, i assume this
response is on behalf of nomcom (do let me know if its otherwise in your
individual capacity). Kindly find my comments below:

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins <mje at> wrote:

> Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom
> (Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for various
> elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, and NRO/ASO
> representatives.
> >
Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. However nomcom
according to the AFRINIC website means this:
*The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee)* [1]Functions of the
Nomination Committee:

   - The Nom Com shall
      - use its best effort towards ensuring that a satisfactory number of
      individuals from the African internet community stand as
candidate for the
      election of the directors of AFRINIC.
      - have general responsibility for, and shall supervise the conduct of
      the polls by the election Committee on election day.

Although the second role seem to imply that there is another team called
"election committee" and at this point, i seem to be lost on how that
committee come to play. Nevertheless its still clear that your team
coordinates the process and your role exceeds what you have stated above.

> Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom.
> There are some logistics which people may be missing.
> I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, however
> until then.....

Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the blessings of
BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming election.

> Practically, the e-vote needs to be terminated some time before people
> collect their ballot papers. This is so that the ballot papers can be
> provided only to those entities allowed to vote because they have not
> yet exercised that right via the e-vote. In order to do this, logically,
> one needs to see which entities have used the e-vote so their
> representatives are not also given a ballot paper to vote with.

I still find it not convincing that the termination of e-voting is the only
way to avoid multiple voting. Especially since it is clear that you go
through a process before you can do e-voting, and it is expected that
anyone that opt for e-voting obviously doesn't want to paper ballot. So its
clear those to give paper ballot can be known easily.
What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior knowledge of the
e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that.

> From a convenience point of view, the e-vote cut-off time is the evening
> before voting day. Names can then be checked. From the morning of voting
> day, paper ballots are issued to all still legible voters. This takes time.
> Paper Ballots are carried by their owners until they are "exercised" later
> on in the afternoon.

Please see my comment above about why i think we don't have to count the
e-votes just to get the numbers of those who used the e-voting platform.
Even if you don't think that option is totally perfect (because some would
already gotten their BPKI) then the voting platform should be able clearly
separate actual voting result from from users(members) who has actually
voted. Considering the level of technicality already exhibited on the
e-voting platform, i believe a feature like that is the least challenge of
the technical team (if it doesn't already exist).

> I guess that in the process of checking the names of entities who have
> e-voted, one may also know how they have voted (though I might be wrong). I
> personally have no issues with this as long as the e-vote
> results are kept strictly confidential (as has been done).Once all the
> paper ballots have been submitted and counted, the results of the two
> systems can be safely merged into one election result and announced.
> Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote confidential is the
main goal.

> Due to the fact that I represent more than one entity, I have more than
> one vote to cast. Last year, I cast some by e-vote and some by ballot
> paper. I was happy to see that the system worked.
> I did mine via e-voting and i believe no body who has used the e-voting
platform would deny that it was quite functional. I was however surprised
at the AGM when it was said that the voting system closed and the result
counted. The way i know that election is done is that you count votes in
the presence of the voters (or at least before the candidates party
representatives). On that basis as an individual and member i wouldn't know
whether something has happened to my votes (although the platform worked).

Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one might do this
> better whilst we have both e-votes and paper ballot votes.
> Nobody, and certainly not me is asking us to move to 100% e-votes for now
(but we agree its something to consider for future). What we are saying is
that you while may stop e-voting at a point (which i find un-necessary
though) the opening of the e-voting voting status by the 3-trustees should
be done the same time the paper ballot is counted.

... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning correct... :-)

Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for 100% electronic
voting which is not the case.


Kind Regards

*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
<> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at
<seun.ojedeji at>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list