+1 Mark,
I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in business
and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things
hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I’ve ever
read.
It’s the same way with shareholder meetings – a shareholder may give a proxy to
someone.
A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person who
gave it to them.
Andrew
On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" <m...@posix.co.za> wrote:
On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
> Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to
> achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another
> question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes.
>
> We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member
> views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where
> through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members who
> might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about.
If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that
person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be
100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow
them, my issue is with them, no one else.
Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on
certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for
another year.
If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to
them. I really don't see the problem.
> We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to
> start putting our minds round how to find a solution.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" <dew...@tinitop.com> wrote:
>
>> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a
>> percentage (of something or the other)?
>>
>> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership
>> were to double in a year or two.
>>
>> Dewole.
>>
>>
>> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
>>>> <alan.barr...@afrinic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango
>>>>> <ondoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alan,
>>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too
>>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large.
>>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member
>>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data
>>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of
>>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our
>>>>> quorum requirement.
>>>> Sure, I can get those numbers.
>>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections.
>>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of
>>> members who attended the meetings.
>>>
>>> 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 49
183 On-Site Votes 45
>>> 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245
>>>
>>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of
>>> 30 resource members in the future.
>>>
>>> Alan _______________________________________________
>>> Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss
>> mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss
> mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
m...@posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
