On 16 Jun 2025, at 18:09, Andrew Alston via zanog-discuss wrote:
The bylaws limit the number of proxies that can be held by a single voting individual to 5 proxies maximum - and I would say the companies act pretty explicitly states that you either vote yourself, or via proxy - therefore the limitation should still apply.
IANAL, but i’m willing to bet, that the sudden increase in POAs (which, we all agree was never really a “thing” before) points to someone being willing to argue that the “limit” did not apply to this. either way, it would be best to get that clarified so there is no room for confusion.
That's just my view on this - but I think where you and I disagree is that getting a blanket court injunction that effectively prevents ANY election from occurring is in any way shape or form a sane strategy. And that is exactly what the order does - it doesn't allow for an election we hope to have, it blocks any election and leaves the company in further limbo. Basically, instead of us getting to the point where the company can function, the order before us ensures that we cannot get to that point, in any way shape or form.
i’m curious why you think that a court variation would not be applicable here? as in, something like:
“we, the court, vary the order <blah> granted on <blah> to include <blah-blah> .. “ .. since that’s already a strategy that has been done before. it seems reasonable to me that TISPA’s strategy might have been: a) delay the election until $issues are fixed; b) apply for a variation to include XYZ that will allow the election to proceed in line with supporting _as many bylaws as possible_
even as i write that, i see the difficulty attached to (b).
but i also appreciate that the previous election attempt: - introduced a new avenue of attack (the questionable POAs); - disenfranchised valid, paid-up members from their right to vote; - could have had better oversight, and been a lot more transparent through the inclusion of bodies like the other RIRs; - […] etc.
i believe that afrinic making a good faith attempt to address these issues, _before_ trying to force a hasty, poorly-explained, non-consultative election on the afrinic membership would have achieved a better outcome.
like you, (and i guess every other member who wants to see afrinic restored) i want the election to proceed. and, i still think that there exists a path forward; via the appropriate variations to the court order.
fwiw, i sat in on the call that noah (TISPA) had with the CMNOG audience this afternoon, and, i asked noah the same question. noah’s reasonable answer echoed my expectations (what i wrote above about getting a variation).
ergo me being curious to know, why you think this is a non-starter?
-n.