Domain Manage

Governance Consultation Template

Discussion in 'Nominet General Information' started by Whois-Search, Apr 15, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Dec 2004
    Likes Received:
    This is my full Nominet governace consultation response:

    I have also used it to produce a template for people to use:

    Please tell me if you spot any errors and read it before you send it!

    Also please please respond to the consultation.

    Any response is better than no response!

    The Nominet membership (particularly small members) needs saving before it loses control forever.

    The full survey and email address is on:
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Likes Received:
  3. Beasty

    Beasty Active Member

    Jan 2006
    Likes Received:
    A response is VITAL!

    The Governance Consultation closes today. It is VITAL that you respond if you have any interest in how Nominet is run in the future. There are fundamental changes being proposed - whcih if implemented that will never be reversed. Yes there will be an EGM vote later in the year - but this is your chance to shape those proposals. If enough people say "No" to the proposed changes, it will be a hard task to carry them on as they are currently set out. If you say nothing, then you can't complain later if you don't like them!

    Whois has provided his answers on a template above. For what it is worth - here are mine. If anyone wants to borrow any part of them, feel free.

    Non-Members - this is your ONLY chance to have a say - so go to the site and put in your responses now. Even if you only take a few minutes to tick the boxes, it is worth doing.

    1. Disagree Elected members should retain a majority on the Board. As the rules stand, there is nothing preventing a non-member from standing for election - so if the Board feels there is a shortage of talent within the membership, there is nothing preventing it from putting up one or more candidates for election. If they are obviously superior to the other candidates, they will doubtless be elected. If they are not interested enough to stand in an open election, that tells us they were not motivated enough in the first place. If there are to be three Executives and one non-exec appointed Chairman, then 6 elected non-execs, with two elected each year. I am not convinced however that three Executive Directors - plus an Appointed Chair - are really needed. I think 2 Executives plus a Chairman are enough. I suppose the answer to this question - and many that follow - depends on whether one sees Nominet as a member driven public organisation - or just a "normal" private company.

    2. Disagree I agree that the Chairman should be de-coupled from MD and Executive requirements. However I am unconvinced that there is a need for 3 Executive Directors as well as a Non-Exec Chairman. I suggest 2 Executives (CEO and CFO) and the Chair - with 6 Elected Non-Execs in a 3 year rotation. Consider also the cost of appointing 2 new Executive Diretors (at least £120K PA each, judging from current rates on the board) and question the need for such expenditure.

    3 Disagree I agree with 3 year cycles. I strongly disagree with reducing the number of elected non-execs. If it is to be 3 year cycles, I can see the sense in 6 elected non-execs - plus chair and 2 Executive Directors. I echo what has been said before - that to have only one non-executive elected each year will result in a single power base being able to elect all three non-execs - whereas at the moment there is balance with at least two points of view being elected each year.

    4. Disagree I strongly disagree. This is not necessary - non-member candidates are already allowed, so the pool of talent is not limited in the way that the proposal suggests. Further, the question again raises the fundamental point about how one perceives Nominet - either as a member driven organisation or as a "normal" private commercial company.

    5. Disagree Some of these proposals may be unobjectionable, but they are so vaguely expressed in the text that it is hard to say. Certainly Tabble A is meant for commercial companies limited by shares - why does a not-for-profit company limited by guarantee need parts of Table A. Some of these suggestions are rendered otiose by the new Companies Act; or worse theyconflict with it. Some are clearly objectionable - such as the issue of allowing one director to run the company; and allowing directors with a clear conflict to vote on an issue.

    6. Agree!

    7. Disagree. The concept that Nominet is a "normal" company subject to competition is absurd. It has a monopoly for issuing .uk domains. Even the OFT doubted that there was any meaningful competition to Nominet in the wider domain registration market. In truth, nothing that any other registry can do will make any sort of immedeate impact on .uk registrations. The need for quick reaction time does not exist - domains are registered on 2 year cycles. It is hard to envisage a situation where .uk domains will be dropped in significant numbers - and if they were to be then no doubt they would be caught anyway! Likewise, the power of setting membership fees needs to be seperated from registration fees. Both should remain in the hands of the membership.
  4. yesterday

    yesterday Active Member

    Jul 2006
    Likes Received:
    Thanks Beasty.


Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page