<div dir="ltr"><div>Hello Mark,<br><br></div>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:<br>
<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Mark Elkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank">mje@posix.co.za</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">
<br>
</div>Firstly, NomCom does not run the elections. The job of NomCom<br>
(Nominations Committee) is to provide suitable candidates for various<br>
elections or appointments, Board Members, PDP Joint-Chairs, and NRO/ASO<br>
representatives.<br>
<div class="">><br></div></blockquote><div>Although nomcom may seem to mean what you indicated above. However nomcom according to the AFRINIC website means this: <br><b>The NomCom (Nominations and Elections Committee)</b> [1]Functions of the Nomination Committee:
<ul><li>The Nom Com shall
<ul><li>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.</li><li>have general responsibility for, and shall supervise the conduct of the polls by the election Committee on election day.</li></ul>
</li></ul>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. <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="">
> Thanks for the opportunity to participate in nomcom.<br>
<br>
</div>There are some logistics which people may be missing.<br>
I see that there is a goal to move to 100% electronic voting, however<br>
until then.....<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes thats the final desire,(which will perhaps require the blessings of BoD) but that is not the request for this upcoming election.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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<br>
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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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. <br>
</div><div>What needs to be avoided is having privileged prior knowledge of the e-voting status, your comment above doesn't prevent that.<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
>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.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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).<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
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<br>
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.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>Kindly refer to my comment above; keeping the e-vote confidential is the main goal.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
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.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>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).<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Before asking for change, please carefully consider how one might do
this better whilst we have both e-votes and paper ballot votes.<br>
<br></blockquote><div>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.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
... and I believe I have the general details and reasoning
correct... :-)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not quite Mark as i think you perceive we are calling for 100% electronic voting which is not the case.<br><br></div><div>Thanks<br><br></div><div>Kind Regards <br></div>
</div>-- <br><div dir="ltr">------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><font color="#888888"><blockquote style="margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex;font-family:garamond,serif">
<i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Seun Ojedeji,<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">web: </span><a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">Mobile: <a value="+2348035233535">+2348035233535</a></span><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)"></span><br></i><i><span style="color:rgb(0,102,0)">alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453" target="_blank"> </a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng" target="_blank">seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></span></i><br>
<br><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">The key to understanding is humility - my view !<br></blockquote></blockquote></font><br></div>
</div></div></div>