AGM Voting rights allocation

[Whois-Search]

I notice the new Voting rights allocation pdf is now online for the AGM:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9082_voting_rights_29082006.pdf

Which uses the new voting rights policy:

Allocation of Voting Rights

At least you can "estimate" how many domains a member has now......

Different from the EGM one:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/4620_voting_rights_allocation_feb_06.pdf

Also notice all the new members since Alan Brace including all the "miss and mrs" members.

 

[Whois-Search]

It's quite interesting if you match the election statements:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/9115_Director_Election_Statements_2006.pdf

With the voting allocation:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9082_voting_rights_29082006.pdf


If you leave out the 2 current board members:


1. Andrew Bennett
Proposed by: Global Publications Ltd (via Barry Garner)
Seconded by: Chris Holland trading as CHC Internet

S06725 Mr Andrew Bennett 251
S06259 Global Publications Ltd 251
S03137 Mr C Holland 5,202



2. Lord Erroll
Proposed by: Thus PLC trading as Demon (via Clive Feather)
Seconded by: Mistral Internet Ltd (via Alex Kells)

S00025 Thus plc 11,805
S00276 Mistral Internet Group Limited 4,128



3. Peter Gradwell
Proposed by: gradwell dot com Ltd (via Peter Gradwell)
Seconded by: Pipex Communications UK Ltd (via Jarrod Robinson)

S01192 Gradwell dot com Limited 2,264
S00069 Pipex Communications UK Ltd 323,706


4. Angus Hanton
Proposed by: Paragon Limited (via David Blackburn)
Seconded by: Michael Toth


S00784 Giant Games Ltd 11,427
S03454 Paragon Ltd 1,088
S01616 Lively Ltd 1,510


Please note: you can vote for your self as a Nominet member and also the proposer/seconder doesn't have to vote for you (even if they will )

So to get on the board you need the big "registers" on your side.

 

[retired_member11]

Do these details suggest that the election result is a fait accompli?

Does it imply that this democracy is controlled by politico-technocrats?

Perhaps this is not the only pluto in need of redesignation this year.

 

[Jac]

Do these details suggest that the election result is a fait accompli?

Does it imply that this democracy is controlled by politico-technocrats?

Perhaps this is not the only pluto in need of redesignation this year.

Whois-Search is probably right: "to get on the board you need the big "registers" on your side" (I think he meant "registrars") but this has always been the case. Nominet Board elections have always been run on weighted voting. Conversely, PAB elections are OMOV. Some argue that weighted voting is justified because of the investment bigger members (or more accurately bigger tag holders) have put into their stake in Nominet and the community. So on face value one particular election candidate looks to be in the strongest position at least initially. However, it ain't over till the fat membership sings and many small and medium sized members can still outweigh one big vote holder.

It is I think fair to compare how other companies who are shareholder based have weighted voting too in terms of shares held; but you are probably right too; democracy can sometimes be controlled by politico-technocrats.

Regards
James Conaghan

PS: Maybe it's fairer to say: democracy can sometimes be weighted in favour of politico-technocrats.

 

[olebean]

Whois-Search is probably right: "to get on the board you need the big "registers" on your side" (I think he meant "registrars") but this has always been the case. Nominet Board elections have always been run on weighted voting. Conversely, PAB elections are OMOV. Some argue that weighted voting is justified because of the investment bigger members (or more accurately bigger tag holders) have put into their stake in Nominet and the community. So on face value one particular election candidate looks to be in the strongest position at least initially. However, it ain't over till the fat membership sings and many small and medium sized members can still outweigh one big vote holder.

It is I think fair to compare how other companies who are shareholder based have weighted voting too in terms of shares held; but you are probably right too; democracy can sometimes be controlled by politico-technocrats.

Regards
James Conaghan

PS: Maybe it's fairer to say: democracy can sometimes be weighted in favour of politico-technocrats.

It does seem there maybe a change in the board

One thing that does concern me is Lord Errolls apparent indication in the statement

If elected, I will attend as many board meetings as possible

No disrespect intended, does nominet want someone who IMO comes across as uncommitted to the job yet wants the title?

 

[retired_member9]

If elected, I will attend as many board meetings as possible

That caught my eye too: so pathetically honest! =))

 

[Beasty]

Whois-Search is probably right: "to get on the board you need the big "registers" on your side" (I think he meant "registrars") but this has always been the case. Nominet Board elections have always been run on weighted voting. Conversely, PAB elections are OMOV. Some argue that weighted voting is justified because of the investment bigger members (or more accurately bigger tag holders) have put into their stake in Nominet and the community. So on face value one particular election candidate looks to be in the strongest position at least initially. However, it ain't over till the fat membership sings and many small and medium sized members can still outweigh one big vote holder.

It is I think fair to compare how other companies who are shareholder based have weighted voting too in terms of shares held; but you are probably right too; democracy can sometimes be controlled by politico-technocrats.

Regards
James Conaghan

PS: Maybe it's fairer to say: democracy can sometimes be weighted in favour of politico-technocrats.

I hear what you say on this James.

However in more "conventional" companies, investment relates to an increased number of shares. The voting is generally based simply on the number of shares a member has - the more you own, the more say you have..

In Nominet, each member has an equal share of the whole. The economic argument you mentioned struggles when one moves away from tagholders who hold a tag to register domains that they pay for themselves - and move to bulk registrars/ISPs who get payment from third parties and acquire the domains for them as part of a commercial service. They are not actually paying anything (of their own) to Nominet.

I endorse your call for responsibility to the wider stakeholder community. So I propose that the "membership" of Nominet be tied to the registration of domains. That way Nominet would be directly accountable to the people and companies who really pay the bills; and elections would empower them to be heard and represented. One domain - one vote!

 

[Jac]

I hear what you say on this James.

However in more "conventional" companies, investment relates to an increased number of shares. The voting is generally based simply on the number of shares a member has - the more you own, the more say you have..

In Nominet, each member has an equal share of the whole. The economic argument you mentioned struggles when one moves away from tagholders who hold a tag to register domains that they pay for themselves - and move to bulk registrars/ISPs who get payment from third parties and acquire the domains for them as part of a commercial service. They are not actually paying anything (of their own) to Nominet.

I endorse your call for responsibility to the wider stakeholder community. So I propose that the "membership" of Nominet be tied to the registration of domains. That way Nominet would be directly accountable to the people and companies who really pay the bills; and elections would empower them to be heard and represented. One domain - one vote!

I think I see your point, but for the sake of clarity, are you advocating that if I personally register 1,000,000 domain names I get 1,000,000 votes? What happens if I register 5,000,000 domain names; do I then get carte blanche in terms of how Nominet is run? What happens if this was actually enshrined in the constitution and nobody else gets to vote at all because I am 5,000,000 times more powerful? It seems a kind of plutocratic type argument to me where only the rich get to decide; but maybe I've misunderstood your intent.

By way of relevancy; I am told by others who understand the weighted voting system better than me, that it is still possible for small and medium sized members to outvote the big guns (if enough of them actually vote).

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

That caught my eye too: so pathetically honest! =))

For what it's worth, he is actually a very honest and very down to earth man. Apart from his involvement on the Policy Advisory Board, I had the pleasure of spending most of a particular day with him at the House of Lords and found him to be genuinely interested in ordinary stakeholder viewpoints.

Just thought I'd mention that.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[sneezycheese]

Blatant Misrepresentation

I think I see your point, but for the sake of clarity, are you advocating that if I personally register 1,000,000 domain names I get 1,000,000 votes? What happens if I register 5,000,000 domain names; do I then get carte blanche in terms of how Nominet is run? What happens if this was actually enshrined in the constitution and nobody else gets to vote at all because I am 5,000,000 times more powerful? It seems a kind of plutocratic type argument to me where only the rich get to decide; but maybe I've misunderstood your intent.

...Your getting good at starting fires to distract people from the REAL ISSUES!

We've heard it time and time from you Jac about the PAB and its supposed care for the 'wider stakeholder comunity' and I would suggest the largest (and most important) of these is that of the registrant, yet you decide to attemt to ridicule Beasty on what I and others feel is a very good point!!!

Why on Earth SHOULDN'T Registrants have a voice??? ...The internet is nothing without them!

Note: If you talk to us nicely, with common sense (and honestly) we will respond accordingly.

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[rob]

Why on Earth SHOULDN'T Registrants have a voice??? ...The internet is nothing without them!

The internet would work fine without domain names and registrants

 

[sneezycheese]

The internet would work fine without domain names and registrants

...It would work, but in the current scheme of things would be pointless for 99.99% of the world population.

wana buy an IP v6 address anyone? it's nice and easy to remember! :mrgreen:

 

[olebean]

...Your getting good at starting fires to distract people from the REAL ISSUES!

We've heard it time and time from you Jac about the PAB and its supposed care for the 'wider stakeholder comunity' and I would suggest the largest (and most important) of these is that of the registrant, yet you decide to attemt to ridicule Beasty on what I and others feel is a very good point!!!

Why on Earth SHOULDN'T Registrants have a voice??? ...The internet is nothing without them!

Note: If you talk to us nicely, with common sense (and honestly) we will respond accordingly.

Regards,

Sneezy.

Lets paint a ver simple scenario

I'll reg £10m domains each with a vote giving me a more than equal chance to put two of my employee on the nominet board and making changes..... nominet is cash rich hmm not much of a gamble if i can make enough changes so that i can control the £6m and rising then increase the charges..

Sorry guys one domain one vote doesn't do it for me

 

[sneezycheese]

Lets paint a ver simple scenario

I'll reg £10m domains each with a vote giving me a more than equal chance to put two of my employee on the nominet board and making changes..... nominet is cash rich hmm not much of a gamble if i can make enough changes so that i can control the £6m and rising then increase the charges..

Sorry guys one domain one vote doesn't do it for me

...A simple scenario that can be protected against by having maximum voting rights - mmm, where have I heard that before?

 

[Whois-Search]

Talking of technocrats .....

Do you think this is the man himself:

S07233 Mr Bob Gilbert 251

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9082_voting_rights_29082006.pdf

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Talking of technocrats .....

Do you think this is the man himself:

S07233 Mr Bob Gilbert 251

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9082_voting_rights_29082006.pdf

I'd guess yes. It's a recent membership number and all Board members are automatically given membership.

Hazel

 

[olebean]

...A simple scenario that can be protected against by having maximum voting rights - mmm, where have I heard that before?

lol sneezy then we talk about cost of administering such a scenario, data being kept upto date etc etc. Not living in distant and far lands. In theory yes I agree it seem good but in practice nah!

That means me not being able to vote...

 

[Beasty]

I think I see your point, but for the sake of clarity, are you advocating that if I personally register 1,000,000 domain names I get 1,000,000 votes? What happens if I register 5,000,000 domain names; do I then get carte blanche in terms of how Nominet is run? What happens if this was actually enshrined in the constitution and nobody else gets to vote at all because I am 5,000,000 times more powerful? It seems a kind of plutocratic type argument to me where only the rich get to decide; but maybe I've misunderstood your intent.

By way of relevancy; I am told by others who understand the weighted voting system better than me, that it is still possible for small and medium sized members to outvote the big guns (if enough of them actually vote).

Regards
James Conaghan

Instead you prefer a plutocratic model where registrars obtain distorted power and influence using other people's money - and then have the front to say they should have that authority because of the money THEY bring in to Nominet! I agree James, so much fairer...

Of course, it should go without saying that the same capping system that is currently applied could also be applied to the (theoretical) mass applicants you envisage.

Heaven forbid that those who actually pay the fees and register the domains should actually have a direct voice in running the registry. Needless to say it will never happen - since it would require the members to vote for it - allow in the great unwashed - and at a stroke dilute their own power.

Now that is a plutocracy in action - protecting itself. But please don't pretend there is any great interest in the "wider stakeholder community" at play in that choice.

 

[Jac]

I have added the bit in italics for clarification.

...Your getting good at starting fires to distract people from the REAL ISSUES!

That is a gross misunderstanding of what I am about but it doesn't surprise me.

We've heard it time and time from you Jac about the PAB and its supposed care for the 'wider stakeholder comunity' and I would suggest the largest (and most important) of these is that of the registrant, yet you decide to attemt to ridicule Beasty on what I and others feel is a very good point!!!

Why on Earth SHOULDN'T Registrants have a voice??? ...The internet is nothing without them!

Note: If you talk to us nicely, with common sense (and honestly) we will respond accordingly.

Regards,

Sneezy.

I am saying exactly what you said but because of your own bitterness towards me you have assumed I am saying something different.

Actually, not exactly what you said but I agree that registrants should have a voice. I have always agreed with that and I am expounding on it on nom-steer at present. If you want to bitch at someone bitch at some of the election candidates who have been overtly supportive of only one or other group of stakeholders, which I find astonishing, considering Nominet is supposed to act in the interests of the collective, as in all stakeholders. (Nominet members are stakeholders too; so are dropcatchers and domainers).

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

Instead you prefer a plutocratic model where registrars obtain distorted power and influence using other people's money - and then have the front to say they should have that authority because of the money THEY bring in to Nominet! I agree James, so much fairer...

Well, now I know I'm in La La Land. I offer a hypothesis and you take it as my standpoint. For the sake of clarity, it was a hypothesis because I was not clear where you were coming from. And I have to say Beasty, whilst I accept that the written word is sometimes open to misinterpretation, I would have expected YOU of all people to know where I am coming from... particularly in view of our private exchanges.

Of course, it should go without saying that the same capping system that is currently applied could also be applied to the (theoretical) mass applicants you envisage.

No, it doesn't go without saying, which is why I sought clarification. Nothing goes without saying because (as has just been proven) things are so easily misunderstood and misinterpreted. This is why policy takes longer than a few minutes to resolve because one tries to ensure it is undertstood by more than those writing it. I have come across few policies (governmental or otherwise) that have not been misinterpreted by minorities. I cite the fox hunting law which was so badly written as to almost incite some people to flagrantly breach it.

Heaven forbid that those who actually pay the fees and register the domains should actually have a direct voice in running the registry. Needless to say it will never happen - since it would require the members to vote for it - allow in the great unwashed - and at a stroke dilute their own power.

Now that is a plutocracy in action - protecting itself. But please don't pretend there is any great interest in the "wider stakeholder community" at play in that choice.

It seems both you and Mr Cheese have completely misunderstood my wording. I am sorry my wording and my meaning were not clearer, but I used the question approach to seek clarification on what you were saying.

Regards
James Conaghan