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

[rpd] Discussion about e-voting

ademola at ademola at
Tue May 13 13:02:19 UTC 2014

Animal Farm is all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. That is not democratic.

Abuse is quite easy. I lobby to represent  so many members who really care less about what is happening on Afrinic. I end up with so many voting rights. I even go further to get a few more colleagues to do the same. Collectively we can block votes in our own personal interest. That is not even far fetched.

One voice should be one individual and one vote.

Ademola Osindero 
CEO/Consulting Director, 
Lopworks Limited
  Original Message  
From: Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM
To: ademola at
Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at
Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting

On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at wrote:

> Hi All, 
> My point is this is easily prone to abuse and would lead to Animal Farm situation.

You are repeating yourself. Can you substantiate this in any way? What is the abuse you expect from this?

What do you mean by “Animal Farm” situation? I doubt that we will be chanting “four legs good, two legs bad” at AfriNIC meetings any time soon.

> 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.

Do you think that other industry organizations prohibit people who are on the boards of multiple member organizations from voting for each and every organization they represent? I have never before encountered a situation where that is the case. If AfriNIC were to adopt such a policy, it would be quite unique in my experience.

If this is such a source of abuse, then why is it not a problem in many other organizations with similar processes?


> 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 
> Original Message 
> From: Andrew Alston
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:22 AM
> To: Nii Narku Quaynor; ademola at
> Cc: rpd at
> 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> 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 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
>>> 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 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 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
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at
> 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

More information about the RPD mailing list