Governance Consultation 2

[Whois-Search]

There is less than three days left to reply to the Second Governance Consultation:

http://www.keysurvey.co.uk/survey/162497/aaa2

At the Governance consultation event on the 16th October (which only around 8 members attended) it was confirmed that proposal six "Proxies" could not be implemented because of the companies act 2006 section 324.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2006/ukpga_20060046_en_21#pt13-ch3-pb6-l1g324

Therefore IMO in this consultation there is only one controversial proposal left to consider and that is "Membership rules and expulsion for breach".

I believe this is a step to far and gives the board to much power. Some people have suggested an appeal system with some kind of fee. However I believe decisions like this should be subject to a vote by the membership - even if its via electronic voting and no EGM/AGM.

I would read Clive Feather's response if you have time:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/governance/consultation/respond

Since my Governance Consultation one response has been removed from Nominet's website, I have answered the consultation by clicking I agree or I disagree ONLY.

 

[Whois-Search]

One day to go!

The consultation ends tomorrow.....

http://www.keysurvey.co.uk/survey/162497/aaa2

If your a Nominet member I suggest you reply with:


1. I agree

2. I disagree

Comments: This gives too much power to the board. Once written in to the articles a rouge future board could even expel half the membership! Or I fear it will be used to expel small sole trader members i.e. dropcatchers (for minor breaches of the Whois/DAC/Automaton/Linked tags).

Also were the criminal cases of "Domain Registrar Services" and "Peter Francis-Macrae" actually put to a AGM/EGM vote? If not why not? In such severe abuse cases surely the membership present would agree to expulsion? I would prefer there to be a "unanimous" board member vote or a electronic vote by the membership.

3. I disagree

Comments: Same as question 2

4. I agree

5. I agree

6. I disagree

Comments: Nominet can not do this because of the companies act 2006 section 324.

7. I agree

8. I agree

9. I agree

10. I disagree

Comments: The board should not use this as an opportunity to push through controversial proposals. Each controversial proposal such as getting rid of Article 19A and membership expulsion should be voted on separately.

 

[sneezycheese]

It's broken - Dodgy SW???

Looks like the form's broken ...

1. Terminology and transfer

2. Membership rules and expulsion for breach

3. Membership rules and expulsion for breach

4. Voting

5. Voting

6. Proxies

7. Death of a sole member

8. Written resolutions

9. Indemnities

10. Any other issues

11. Do you have any other comments you would like to make?

12. Please give us your contact details

Relevent bits (as usual) highlighted.

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[Beasty]

The consultation ends tomorrow.....

http://www.keysurvey.co.uk/survey/162497/aaa2

If your a Nominet member I suggest you reply with:


1. I agree

2. I disagree

Comments: This gives too much power to the board. Once written in to the articles a rouge future board could even expel half the membership! Or I fear it will be used to expel small sole trader members i.e. dropcatchers (for minor breaches of the Whois/DAC/Automaton/Linked tags).

Also were the criminal cases of "Domain Registrar Services" and "Peter Francis-Macrae" actually put to a AGM/EGM vote? If not why not? In such severe abuse cases surely the membership present would agree to expulsion? I would prefer there to be a "unanimous" board member vote or a electronic vote by the membership.

3. I agree

4. I agree

5. I agree

6. I disagree

Comments: Nominet can not do this because of the companies act 2006 section 324.

7. I agree

8. I agree

9. I agree

10. I disagree

Comments: The board should not use this as an opportunity to push through controversial proposals. Each controversial proposal such as getting rid of Article 19A and membership expulsion should be voted on separately. Otherwise EGM 3 will be a repeat of EGM 1 and a vote of no confidence will be called for.

Anyone can respond - members and non-members. Please do so.

I agree with most of Whois' responses - except I would say no to 3 (I am not even sure it is lawful to remove a part owner of a company in this way) and no to 9 (or at least limit it to cases where they are the defendant and not the claimant).

In any event, as ever if as many people as possible give their views, the more representative the consultation will be.