A storm is brewing re Board elections!

[bb99]

http://www.nic.uk/news/latest/?contentId=5010


It appears that the Nominet Board are not convinced as to the suitability of some of the candidates!

 

[rob]

http://www.nic.uk/news/latest/?contentId=5010


It appears that the Nominet Board are not convinced as to the suitability of some of the candidates!

interested to know what / who is currently under investigations....

 

[bb99]

Does anyone know if Popularis, who are the independent outfit conducting this here election, provide feedback on the current scores to Nominet? In other words do they perhaps report daily on who is winning!?

And does anyone also know if, having voted online, it's possible to change your vote in light of what the candidates say following today's call to action?

 

[SF]

Ive just un subscribed them worthless f**** loosers were starting to really piss me off every time i check my email I have a new bullshit f**** post, I am to busy to acknolge the f****low lifes anymore ...

UN-SUBSCRIBED

 

[retired_member3]

They want the candidates to declare if they have been involved in DRS. They'll be outing the expenses next!

 

[Hazel Pegg]

http://www.nic.uk/news/latest/?contentId=5010


It appears that the Nominet Board are not convinced as to the suitability of some of the candidates!

They are not the only ones.

Hazel
www.NOTnominet.org.uk

 

[bb99]

Ive just un subscribed them worthless fucking loosers were starting to really piss me off every time i check my email I have a new bullshit fucking post, I am to busy to acknolge the fucking low lifes anymore ...

UN-SUBSCRIBED

Potty mouth :shock:

 

[bb99]

They are not the only ones.

Tell me about it - I oppose one of them purely because I've met him and he's an absolute Grade A plonker. But I don't think that's a wholly valid reason for not voting for him.

I think that the next few days are going to be interesting

 

[SF]

Yeah sorry its just its starting to wind me up, i mean what are they going to discuss next the weather? its about the only thing not mentioned.. i am having to trawl through useless posts, i have un-subscribed but i am still getting them filling up my inbox, I think i will call nominet tomorrow and get them to un-subscribe me, ill tell them what i think too, there all a bunch of cocks... (thats the nom sterr lot iam talking abouit not nominet )

 

[SF]

I think that the next few days are going to be interesting

Thats all very well, if you have nothing else better to do

 

[mishmash]

What the candidates Nominet doesn't like say on diluting the membership's influence or potential influence on Nominet's board.

Retain Board Representation for the Members Among the resolutions being proposed at the forthcoming AGM is one to increase the size of the board by allowing the executive to appoint additional directors themselves, without their being elected by the membership. Nominet has built its’ reputation by listening and acting on the advice of its’ members, now it intends to permanently remove the vital link between the board and the membership. I intend to vote against this resolution (resolution 6) and I strongly advise all members to vote against this resolution.

I believe Special Resolution 6 should not be adopted. In due course, I suggest a wider ranging Resolution (in line with best practice found in The Combined Code) should be recommended to members.

Since Willie Black left the influence of the members has declined; as the membership are the people most affected by any changes in the management of the CC TLD it is of paramount importance that they have the dominant presence on the board.
Rather than dilute the influence of the membership I propose that the chairman of the board be elected by the membership. The term of office should last for two years and be eligible for re-election thereafter. Needless to say I am opposed to the resolutions to be put before the AGM which if passed will allow the board to appoint its’ own directors.

There's nothing there that I see as so disruptive that it needed the board to intervene in the election, they appear like rational and reasonable points of view.

 

[bb99]

There's nothing there that I see as so disruptive that it needed the board to intervene in the election, they appear like rational and reasonable points of view.

Well, looking at the questions that Nominet has asked, it looks like they are going for character rather than specifically disagreeing with the election statements. Clever!

 

[aZooZa]

It's all gainsaying; useless politics, and some of it quite deprecating actually. Lot of folk there with bugger else to do but court controversy.

 

[mishmash]

Well, looking at the questions that Nominet has asked, it looks like they are going for character rather than specifically disagreeing with the election statements. Clever!

There appears to be some inconsistency there on one hand they're asking members to make their decisions based on the published manifestos and on the other they're calling for Candidates to make further declarations. They don't answer the question of how will those declarations, if they are made, get distributed to the electorate at this stage?

I don't think those involved in disputes should not be able to stand or be elected, and anyone working for their own personal gain rather than in the interests of the organisation would be failing in their statutory duties as a director.

There's a parallel with local Government - if you're involved in a dispute with the council over council tax (or you simply haven't paid it) you're allowed to stand, but not to vote on any issue relating to it. Perhaps something along those lines would be applicable to Nominet

 

[bb99]

I think they are going to publish the candidates' answers on the Nominet website and then the board will also make their recommendations based on those answers.

 

[aZooZa]

I think they are going to publish the candidates' answers on the Nominet website and then the board will also make their recommendations based on those answers.

It's already in the voting stage. The candidates have already published their stances. It's not reasonably up to the board to recommend/mandate how members vote, although opinions are readily available. I have already voted and thus do not expect another bite at the cherry.

 

[bb99]

It's already in the voting stage. The candidates have already published their stances.

Aye, that's the point - such action at this point in the election is, well, unprecedented.

I think what they are saying is that they normally don't recommend candidates but, in this case, they are so concerned about what could happen that they will do so. Maybe these concerns weren't so big when the candidates were announced, but they are certainly pretty big now!

 

[grantw]

UN-SUBSCRIBED

Same here, it's a joy not having to hold my finger over the delete key every time I get my mail.

Grant

 

[rob]

As for full disclosure ;
"- Any ongoing matters/ investigations of any nature to which they may be subject."

Does strike me as quite an odd specific question.

The content and timing does just strike me as quite bizarre

Cheers,
Rob.

 

[bb99]

I think they are going to publish the candidates' answers on the Nominet website and then the board will also make their recommendations based on those answers.

Just to correct myself, Nominet have already stated in their PDF that they do not recommend that members vote for any of the three who are against the adoption of Special Resolution 6. So I suppose that is their recommendation.

For those members seeking Board guidance, the Board recommends that you:

- vote for adoption of resolution 6 for the introduction of independent non-executive directors

- do not vote for any of the three candidates that are against this resolution