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

[rpd] Discussion about e-voting

Saul saul at
Wed May 14 11:45:42 UTC 2014


They don’t have stats from the paper votes, unless they go into archives to 
retrieve them…but I doubt, barring proxies would amount to much more?

From: Kofi ansa akufo [mailto:kofi.ansa at]
Sent: 14 May 2014 12:10 PM
To: Saul; rpd at; ademola at
Cc: members-discuss at
Subject: RE: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting

Saul thank you for sharing the stats. Doest it mean basically 29 members 
patronized e-voting (19 votes representing 4 countries) out of over 500 
active members in the last election?

AFRINIC reach and positive impact on the continent could be translated into 
many members participating in the running and decision making processes if 
certain operational functions are distributed over the continent.

Presence around the region should not be overlooked.

This is another topic of discussion all together.



On May 14, 2014 11:09 AM, "Saul" <saul at> wrote:

Hi Guys,

Sorry for a bit of cross posting, but

For those of you that aren’t on the members-discuss list, attached is the 
voting numbers from last year’s election.

Rather dismal.

I don’t quite see the need for dividing the region, but would first like to 
see at a plan for AFRNIC to have better reach & impact to all of the region, 
all the major languages (maybe that creates a need to split into different 
divisions for the 3 major languages but under one roof)

Based on the attached voting stats (only e voting from last year), it is 
clear that very few control AFRNIC & there is serious work that needs to be 
done to enable voting, educate and encourage its members to participate.

From: rpd-bounces at <mailto:rpd-bounces at> 
[mailto:rpd-bounces at <mailto:rpd-bounces at> ] On Behalf 
Of Kofi ansa akufo
Sent: 13 May 2014 07:53 PM
To: Boubakar Barry
Cc: rpd at <mailto:rpd at> ; Andrew Alston
Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting

There is in deed the need for  restructuring and composition if our 
organisation is to remain relevant in the continents growth through enabling 
ICT promotion.

The election process should be then reviewed not to be just casting of votes 
relegated to decision taken by a few for many passive members but rather as 
means to kick the impulse in many members to be active to decide how the 
organisation is steered.

This brings to mind decentralization of AFRINIC operations across the 
continents to get many members actively involved and sensitized and not just 
light up during meetings. What is the status of that discussion?

I see countries like Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya with many members yet 
little or no operations of the RIR established there?

Something for thought :)


On May 13, 2014 7:38 PM, "Boubakar Barry" <boubakarbarry at 
<mailto:boubakarbarry at> > wrote:

Interesting discussions here.

I think that what we can learn from all the expressed views is that AfriNIC 
has to seriously look at the election process, starting from the composition 
of NomCom and ending with the counting of votes.

Nobody in this world can claim having in place a _perfect_ system, but for 
our community, there is obviously room for improvement.

And after improving what we have right now, we will for sure still have to 
improve again and again...


On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at 
<mailto:owen at> > wrote:

On May 13, 2014, at 6:02 AM, ademola at 
<mailto:ademola at>  wrote:

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

True, but it also has no relationship whatsoever to the voting we are 
talking about. Each member organization still has only one vote.

> 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.

I suppose that is possible, but I haven’t seen anything to indicate that it 
is actually happening or is likely to happen. Also, if this really is an 
issue, then wouldn’t others with competing interests have an equal ability 
to lobby for those same votes? Why would someone attempting to abuse the 
process have a greater advantage than one trying to prevent such abuse?

> One voice should be one individual and one vote.

Repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it any more rational than 
the firs time you said it.


> Regards,
> Ademola Osindero
> CEO/Consulting Director,
> Lopworks Limited
> <>
>   Original Message
> From: Owen DeLong
> Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:54 PM
> To: ademola at <mailto:ademola at>
> Cc: Andrew Alston; Nii Narku Quaynor; rpd at 
> <mailto:rpd at>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting
> On May 12, 2014, at 11:39 PM, ademola at 
> <mailto: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?
> Owen
>> 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 
>> <mailto:ademola at>
>> Cc: rpd at <mailto: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 
>> <mailto: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 
>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:ademola at>
>>>> Cc: mje at <mailto:mje at> ; rpd at 
>>>> <mailto: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 
>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:mje at>
>>>>> Cc: rpd at <mailto: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 <mailto:rpd at>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rpd mailing list
>>>> rpd at <mailto:rpd at>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at <mailto: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 <mailto:rpd at>

rpd mailing list
rpd at <mailto:rpd at>

rpd mailing list
rpd at <mailto:rpd at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list