7 days since the AGM still no election results

[Admin]

Results just published:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/2013MEDresults.pdf

AGM webcast
http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest/non-executive-director-election-results

 

[AssetDomains]

This second preference thing I an absolute if joke why is first preference subject to a cap and second preference not so.

 

[Stephen]

egm?

My regrets to Lucien and Graeme in not getting elected, lets hope for a Nominet egm to fix the voting system.

Well done on the votes, great achievement that even with the Nominet canvasing phone calls to contend with you both got more votes than Nora on stage 1!

I wonder what the vote result would have been by absolute numbers of the 522 valid actual votes?

 

[Edwin]

This second preference thing I an absolute if joke why is first preference subject to a cap and second preference not so.

Both were capped - Popularis kindly showed the preliminary work-out stages as well in their communication, but it's the capped vote that was used to determine the election outcome. See p5 of this document:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/ReporttoBaronessRennieFritchieDBE.pdf

 

[foz]

Should be one member one vote.

The big Registrars now own and run Nominet.

 

[AssetDomains]

Both were capped - Popularis kindly showed the preliminary work-out stages as well in their communication, but it's the capped vote that was used to determine the election outcome. See p5 of this document:
http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/ReporttoBaronessRennieFritchieDBE.pdf

Thanks Edwin I read that worded very confusingly indeed think I'm getting my head around the math now

 

[AssetDomains]

Should be one member one vote.

The big Registrars now own and run Nominet.

Certainly seems that way I'm guessing theirs no way to turn this round even with EGM surely the big 20 can just vote down any proposals put forward by us smaller members

 

[Systreg]

It's a ridiculous voting system, it only serves to empower those with most to gain, which are those with the most voting power, as it is, it's very much like voting for yourself and for what benefits you most. It should be 1 vote for each member, not based on how many domains each has, that would be the only way to get a true result from votes cast.

 

[Edwin]

The simplest solution would be to lower the cap to (say) 1.5% or 1%. One member one vote is impractical for the reasons already given on this thread. If you also reduced the 10% cap on certain votes to 5% you end up dramatically shifting the balance of power.

 

[GreyWing]

We are asking the Electoral Reform Society to go over Popularis's statement, voting system and results. We find most of the Popularis statement very strange indeed. Popularis say they have seen no evidence, strange as we wanted to show them evidence and they declined it. It's a classic Yes Minister answer, not good enough.

I'm speaking to some very nice people at the ERS, not necessarily to overturn any results but the most important thing, to show it was unfair. Doesn't change a thing in our opinion, let's crack on and keep asking questions. Everything is going pretty well

We are going to write a statement later, thanking everyone on behalf of Lucien and Myself.

 

[Blossom]

No one with an interest in the domain or hosting sector should hold a seat on the board. The claim that they're needed for their expertise is a ridiculous one and could be easily overcome by employing the right people internally and consulting whenever needed.

But then surely internal people are still counted as having an interest in the domain or hosting sector (not saying that's necessarily a bad thing though - still better than people having no knowledge of the sector at all making decisions or being persuaded by other influential people). And what if said people own domains personally? Is there supposed to be a cap on how many domains they own themselves before they count as having an interest? Or how many they can sell?

How is it any different or fairer than people telling other people who to vote for and in what order, as that's what happened on Acorn...

 

[AssetDomains]

Do you think there could be argument that companies with seats on board have no vote in the non executive elections seems to me these companies have huge sway over policy without propping preferred candidates with their huge voting rights

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Do you think there could be argument that companies with seats on board have no vote in the non executive elections seems to me these companies have huge sway over policy without propping preferred candidates with their huge voting rights

If you changed that to "companies with someone standing as a candidate" then it would make more sense. But I doubt that it would have any real effect as the Top Twenty or so have many shared interests so a candidate from any of them would probably stand for the interests of all of them.

 

[Hazel Pegg]

I'd consider changing the voting system so that two elected Directors were elected as now (with some form of weighted voting) and the other two by OMOV. That way the interests of the larger registrar-members are represented as are the concerns of the smaller members (who have very little voting power under the current system).

 

[Nigel]

Well done Graeme and Lucien. That was a really good showing. It's going to be nigh impossible, as things stand, and with the tactics nominet have employed, to get anyone elected to the board to hold them to account. They only need the support of a small number of registrars - and there's no sign that any of the largest registrars have any wish to change things.

 

[monaghan]

I'd consider changing the voting system so that two elected Directors were elected as now (with some form of weighted voting) and the other two by OMOV. That way the interests of the larger registrar-members are represented as are the concerns of the smaller members (who have very little voting power under the current system).

I have to agree with you here, this way there can be a representation to benefit all. Some new blood on the board can only be a good thing (whether you agree with them or not!), I'm sure other small registrars would benefit from representation on the board.

 

[Blossom]

Take direct.uk, would you rather have a well educated, successful business man or woman deciding on whether it was a good or bad thing or a person that works for a large registrar?

I don't know, if the decisions made on Dragons' Den are even slightly indicative of those kinds of people's understanding of the web I would run a mile. They blatantly don't have a clue. I went to one of the Dragon's business confs where he'd learnt SEO to give a talk on it, and it was half very accurate and half terrible and completely wrong (I believe I posted on here at the time about what he said about domain names, which was horrendous and wrong in itself. And that was with some education, I believe).

 

[Blossom]

I'm not saying it'd be perfect but I'd rather have someone make the wrong decision for the right reason than have someone make a decision for selfish reasons.

Having worked at companies where the people making decisions had no clue what decisions they were making, why, or the potential/inevitable impact, I would choose someone knowledgeable who made a decision based on logical business reasons every time. I'm not saying that's perfect, but I can't think of many (any?) situations where it makes sense to have people making decisions when they never fully understand what it is they're making a decision about. It then becomes what's perceived to be the easiest solution or the most cost-effective solution or the solution that Bob likes, i.e. there's always some kind of bias or 'unethical' incentive somewhere, even if people aren't conscious of it. You're just shifting the problem, and when you shift the problem to people who don't care at all about the outcome, that's when you're in serious trouble.

 

[spiderspider]

From the big complicated PDF thingy:

There are 2772 members

A total of 527 members voted

The total number of calls made by nominet was 5390.......... nominet spoke to just under 800 members who were entitled to vote

That may be 'standard' turn out rates (better than the police elections), but still pretty poor.
I know its all immaterial now, but is there problems with the Nominet systems? Making 5K calls, and only getting through to 800 members.

 

[monaghan]

I know its all immaterial now, but is there problems with the Nominet systems? Making 5K calls, and only getting through to 800 members.

In addition to only contacting 800 members, it would be good to know why there are so many members that fail to vote.

2772 members
527 votes

By my maths that's 4/5th of the members who didn't vote which for a special interest member based organisation is a very poor show.