[rpd] Discussion about e-voting

Tue May 13 08:01:10 UTC 2014

Again, I would argue that this is actually normal practice.

Going back to the corporate example before:

An individual sits on 5 boards, he can vote on all 5 boards.

On board 1, comprising of 15 members, with a quorum of 10, 4 members cannot make a board meeting, and assign proxies to one individual to vote on their behalf.  At this point, said individual on board 1 carries his own vote, and 4 proxies.  Have seen that happen before in several cases.

What I *WOULD* like to see is that the proxy form contains a field where the member organization assigning the proxy specifies on the proxy form which way the individual casting the proxy shall vote, or an optional "discretionary" box.  So when the proxies are allocated, the individual can be forced by the member organization assigning the proxy to vote in a particular way, or can specifically be granted the discretion to choose who he/she casts the members vote for.

This would eliminate a lot of the potential problems, where someone shows up with 5 proxies, and can potentially be influenced at the meeting to throw all his/her proxies behind a single candidate, since the votes are already indicated on the proxy ballot.

Just a thought

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Walubengo J [mailto:jwalu at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 10:29 AM
To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting

@Ademola,

jst to complicate matters abit with the following hypothetical case.  I can carry 5 Proxies and still have additional 5votes for the companies of which I am a Director/Owner. Total votes individual cast =10.

walu.
Lesson Learnt: A proxy vote is not necessarily the same as a resource member vote. Or so i think.

--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 5/13/14, ademola at ng.lopworks.com <ademola at ng.lopworks.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting
 To: "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>, "Nii Narku Quaynor" <quaynor at ghana.com>
 Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
 Date: Tuesday, May 13, 2014, 10:03 AM

 Dear,

 If it has already been agreed to, I'm sure  it was well reviewed by your noble selves, then it should be  5.

 And that implies that an
 individual could vote as many as 5 times while acting as a  proxy.

 Fair enough except
 any case of abuse is shown.

 Regards,
 Ademola Osindero
 CEO/Consulting Director,
 Lopworks Limited

 www.lopworks.com
   Original
 Message
 From: Andrew Alston
 Sent:
 Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:48 AM
 To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com;
 Nii Narku Quaynor
 Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
 Subject: RE: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting

 The limit on proxies was
 already reviewed and reduced to 5 after the fiasco in  Tanzania a few elections back.

 This is as defined in the bylaws (I believe  it's in section 12.12, but I'm open to  correction).

 Do you propose
 to reduce this still further?

 Thanks

 Andrew

 -----Original Message-----
 From: ademola at ng.lopworks.com
 [mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:40 AM
 To: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor
 Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
 Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting

 Hi All,

 My point is this is easily prone to abuse and  would lead to Animal Farm situation.

 On Andrew's example of board directorship,  a Director is allowed to cast a vote "on the board of  each company he or she is present". That is completely  different from the director trying to cast a vote on a  platform including many companies he or she represents. The  later is the case of Afrinic.

 To be lenient, it is worth reviewing the limit  on proxy votes as stated by Nii Quaynor.

 Regards,
 Ademola Osindero
 CEO/Consulting Director,
 Lopworks Limited

 www.lopworks.com
 Original
 Message
 From: Andrew Alston
 Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM
 To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at ng.lopworks.com
 Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
 Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting

 Form my perspective, its a
 completely different issue.

 People wearing different hats is part of life,  and part of standard business. Let me give you an
 example:

 An individual
 holds directorships on multiple boards (this is very common  in business, and I can point to several examples).

 That individual has the right
 to vote within the board structures of each entity that he  represents. Same thing.

 Or,
 to put this another way, when an individual votes at the  AfriNIC elections, he does not vote as himself, he votes as  a member. If the member chooses to designate him the right  to vote, that is their right as member. To restrict an  individual from representing multiple organisations would be  equivalent to saying, if you¹re a director of one  organisation, you cannot hold a directorship in another. If  this were to happen, it might be noted that this would  potentially exclude a lot of people from current and past  boards who do hold directorships in other organisations.

 As stated by Ademola, one
 voice, one vote. The only thing is, it is still one voice  one vote, where one voice = ONE MEMBER, the people actually  costing the votes are the members, NOT the individual who is  merely the instrument through which the members voice is  heard.

 That¹s my opinion
 anyway

 Andrew

 On 5/13/14,
 8:45 AM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" <quaynor at ghana.com>
 wrote:

 >Just curious.
 How different is this multi hat different from holding  >proxy? I recall Afrinic has a limit on  proxy?
 >
 >> On May
 13, 2014, at 0:20, ademola at ng.lopworks.com
 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
 >>
 >>
 www.lopworks.com
 >> Original
 Message
 >> From: Owen DeLong
 >> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 11:14 PM
 >> To: ademola at ng.lopworks.com
 >> Cc: mje at posix.co.za; rpd at afrinic.net  >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about  e-voting  >>  >>  I¹m 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 ng.lopworks.com
 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
 >>>
 >>>
 www.lopworks.com
 >>> Original
 Message
 >>> From: Owen DeLong
 >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:58
 PM
 >>> To: mje at posix.co.za
 >>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
 >>> 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  languageŠ  >>>  >>> 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 afrinic.net
 >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
 >>
 >>
 _______________________________________________
 >> rpd mailing list
 >> rpd at afrinic.net
 >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
 >_______________________________________________
 >rpd mailing list
 >rpd at afrinic.net
 >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd

 DISCLAIMER:
 This email contains proprietary information some or all of  which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended  recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has  misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying  to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you  must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email.
 We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are  clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on  behalf of this company or one of its agents.

 _______________________________________________
 rpd mailing list
 rpd at afrinic.net
 https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd

DISCLAIMER:  This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email.  We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents.