My apologies to David, I'd miscalculated due to the way I'd sorted my s/sheet, it's 3/4 of the current member elected NEDs (#4, #13 and #16 - 1% of 2388 being ~24)
People go bankrupt not companies , companies can go insolvent, although that's not what happened in this case, but yes, one of my companies out of dozens got into a situation that wasn't resolvable, and so was allowed to be liquidated
Would you please post a list of the names of your dozens of companies, here?
And the largest Nominet registrar and the #3 registrar are both currently being sued by ICANN - disagreements with the "regulator" in the gtld space do happen
"Sued" is materially different to a breach notice. Suing is often to do with a particular legal disagreement (a registrar and ICANN can choose to sue the other). A breach notice is due to perceived non-compliance of a registrar by ICANN (it's a one way thing. A registrar can't issue ICANN with a breach notice). You appear to have had quite a few breach notices:
2013 -
Astutium addressed to Rob Golding (you)
2015 -
Astutium addressed to Rob Golding (you)
2018 -
Astutium address to Rob Golding (you)
The singular impact of their vote (6.2million votes even capped at 3% would be 186k) would be potentially diminished [if the other votes were for a different choice] but the capped amount would _increase_ not decrease as it's based on # of votes cast
The very simplified version would be ...
If 50 members with 2000 vote A and GD vote B the total cast would be 6.3million votes, and then individual max would be set to 3% of that i.e 189k = 100k for A and 189k for B
If 150 members with 2000 and GD the total cast would be appx 6.5million votes, and then individual max would be set to 3% of that i.e 195k which would make it 300k for A and 195k for B
[its more convoluted than that but the basic idea is there]
The # of votes before you get capped increases the more votes cast (as opposed to the more voters)
This is all
incorrect. You appear not to understand despite being a candidate.
Rule 1: No voter can command more than 3% of the total uncapped votes cast in the election.
Rule 2: Nobody can know the total uncapped votes cast in the election until after voting has ended.
Rule 3: Only then can the cap be determined. The cap is determined using an iterative process.
Your calculations are incorrect.
Registrar "GD" would not have 189,000 votes because this number is a calculation of 3% of their 6,200,000 uncapped votes. The uncapped votes a member has is never relevant if they are surely to be capped.
Here is a very easy example: Just three members decided to cast their vote. These are
all the members that matter in the election. Any other members that didn't vote don't matter, whatever their uncapped vote allocations might have been.
They don't matter because they didn't vote!
Member A who voted - has 500,000 uncapped votes.
Member B who voted - has 2500 uncapped votes.
Member C who voted - has 2000 uncapped votes.
No other members voted so they don't matter in this election.
The 3% cap is calculated as follows:
1. Add up the total number of uncapped votes
cast. That's 500,000 + 2500 + 2000 = 504,500.
2. The cap is calculated
iteratively. This is how:
500,000 votes (member A) + 2500 votes (Member B) + 2000 votes (Member C) = 504,500 total uncapped votes cast.
Member A
currently has 99.1% of the
votes cast because 500,000 (Member A's uncapped votes) / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 99.1%. Members B and C have a combined 0.9% of the
votes cast (100% - 99.1% = 0.9%).
3. To reduce Member A's total vote down to 3% (i.e.
to cap it at 3%) we have to go through
a great many iterative calculations, reducing their voting allocation by 1 over and over again until their share of the
votes cast reduces from 99.1% to 3%. Members B and C do not have their votes reduced because each already has less than 3% of the
votes cast.
Member A has 500,000 votes which is currently 99.1% of the
votes cast but this needs reducing to 3%. We reduce 500,000 by 1 and do the calculation again.
499,999 votes (member A) / 504,500 (total votes cast) * 100 = 99.1% still. Given 500,000 is such a large number the percentage difference is less than 0.1%. I won't write out each iterative step reducing 499,999 by 1 repeatedly because it'll be a hugely long thread. I'll skip some of it and demonstrate with fewer steps. Reduced steps exampled:
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes cast down to 30,000 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 5.94%. Much closer to the 3% cap but not there yet.
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes cast down to 20,000 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.96%. Even closer to the 3% cap but still not there yet.
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 17,000 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.36%. Even more closer to the 3% cap but alas, still not there yet!
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 16,000 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.17%. Still not there!
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,000 votes / 504,500 (total votes cast) * 100 = 2.97%. This is less than the 3% cap so it has been reduced too much. The cap on votes is somewhere between 15,000 and 16,000.
I'll add some votes back on and reduce less.
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,250 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.02%. Getting very close to the magic 3%.
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,200 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.01%.
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,150 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.00297%.
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,145 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3,00198%.
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,140 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.00099108%.
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,139 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.00079286%
Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,135 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 =
3% EXACTLY!
The cap is 15,135 votes.
No member who voted may have more than 3% of the total uncapped votes cast so in this example:
Member A - had 500,000 uncapped votes.
Now has 15,135 capped votes.
Member B - had 2500 uncapped votes.
Still has 2500 uncapped votes.
Member C - had 2000 uncapped votes.
Still has 2000 uncapped votes.
