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

[rpd] Discussion about e-voting

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue May 13 00:52:52 UTC 2014

It _IS_ one voice one vote. The difference is that in this case, the voices are those of resource members who are, by their nature, organizational entities rather than individuals. At that point, since we’re talking about votes representing organizational entities, what does it matter whether an individual represents organization A or organizations B, C, D, and E… It’s still 5 votes and likely it’s still the same 5 votes. With the multiple organizations using a single person to cast their votes, it’s more convenient and less expensive for the organizations, but that’s about the
only thing it changes. 

As an example, in the ARIN region, each member organization designates one DMR who casts the votes for that organization. At one point, I believe I was the DMR for something like 5 such organizations. Currently, I am the DMR for 3. This means that in each ARIN election, I currently cast 3 votes. As a general rule, all three organizations would turn to me for advice on how to vote whether I was casting their vote or not. However, in case any of the tells me to vote otherwise than my advice, I will do as instructed with their vote.  Making them hire someone else to cast their vote (or more likely having me hire someone) doesn’t really accomplish anything to change the election, it just makes the process more convoluted.

What gain do you perceive from that?

If members were individual people and not organizations, I could see your point. An individual shouldn’t have their voting rights procured, purloined, or otherwise enjoined by another entity. However, since we’re not talking about individuals, but rather organizations who must be represented by individuals anyway, I think it’s an entirely different problem.


On May 12, 2014, at 3:20 PM, ademola at wrote:

> What I find rather absurd is one person having multiple votes. What kind of election is that? ‎ It should be one voice one vote and that should mean one individual one vote.
> Regards, 
> Ademola Osindero 
> CEO/Consulting Director, 
> Lopworks Limited ‎
>   Original Message  
> From: Owen DeLong
> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM
> To: ademola at
> Cc: mje at; rpd at
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting
> I’m sorry, but I think that is absurd. All it accomplishes is to force organizations to scramble trying to find additional individuals to cast their votes. It serves absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever, IMHO.
> Owen
> On May 12, 2014, at 3:03 PM, ademola at wrote:
>> One individual one vote, irrespective of how many member organizations you are affiliated to. Once an individual's identity is associated with a member, then the person will cast vote for only that member and no other member.
>> Regards, 
>> Ademola Osindero 
>> CEO/Consulting Director, 
>> Lopworks Limited 
>> Original Message 
>> From: Owen DeLong
>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58 PM
>> To: mje at
>> Cc: rpd at
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting
>>>> 2. Going forward IMHO I think we should discouraged multiple voting by
>>>> an individual for different members since the probability of voting
>>>> differently is low and this only goes to increase votes across one
>>>> side only. A "polished form" of election rigging. I know some will
>>>> argue one can still like gin with different credentials and vote one
>>>> sided but then :)
>>>> Could someone from the community enlighten me on this please.
>> To echo what Mark said in slightly less confrontational language…
>> One member, one vote. Each member should be able to choose who casts the vote on behalf of that member. I see nothing wrong with members who wish to have the same person represent their interests doing so. It is not election rigging if 25 different member organizations all select the same person to cast votes on their behalf. Presumably each member organization is capable of choosing a voting representative who will vote in a manner consistent with their desires and interests. Likely if they were each forced to choose a different person in order to avoid being disenfranchised as you propose, you would simply see a larger group of voters who are potentially less informed and less motivated. I do not think that would be beneficial to AfriNIC, to the community, nor to the members.
>> It seems to me that this is not in any way equivalent to stuffing the ballot box or rigging the election. If those organizations all pick the same person to represent them, either they trust that person to share their ideals/needs/wants or they trust that person to vote as they instruct on their behalf. In either case, that person is legitimately exercising the vote designated by the member organization on behalf of each member organization.
>> Owen
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list