Hanging the AGM and attacks on whistleblower on a mistake in the press

[Lucien Taylor]

I was saddened (and sorry annoyed) when Chair Fritchie opened the 2013 AGM by quoting a mistake in the press stating that Nominet had ‘manufactured concerns’ in 2008. This is a continued attack, and continued victimisation, in my view, of a whistleblower who brought four counts of wrongdoing by Nominet to court, and won on all four counts.

The error was the result of an interview for The Register conducted at about 3am USA time 17 Aug 2012, whilst we were on holiday. The error was corrected in an email sent to Journalist Kevin Murphy of the The Register the same day. This error was publicly corrected in a ‘Response to Chair Fritchie’ s FOI ‘fact finding review’ on 12 October 2012.

So what we may all ask? Well, whilst we are all confused by the anger and insults we remain distracted from the real issue that should cause concern and I’m sure Nominet would like us to forget.

On 16 Aug 2012, Nominet published a statement to members denying that they had instigated government intervention in 2008. In her sworn witness statement, CEO Lesley Cowley stated that they did.

Which is true?

 

[Edwin]

Sounds like a horrible thing for you and Emily to have been confronted with. I wonder if it's actionable (the act of repeating a KNOWN falsehood, I mean)?

 

[Nigel]

that should never have happened at an AGM. ON the plus side it must be a lovely feeling not having to work with that lot again. We've all got a lot to be thankful to Emily for and well done to both of you yesterday.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

I wonder if it's actionable (the act of repeating a KNOWN falsehood, I mean)?

Thank you Edwin and Nigel.

Well here’s the conundrum. As I have repeatedly told Nominet, the statement to members - 16 August 2012 contains factual inaccuracies, and creates a damaging impression of the veracity of the ex-Company Secretary, the outcome of the tribunal, the value of the claim, and the findings. I believe that it is misleading to members - a serious allegation.

The statement was also sent as a personal letter from Lesley Cowley to Emily’s clients and others. It was damaging and caused her lost work, positions on international committees, and damaged her reputation.

I have suffered the same reputational damage by association, and my election campaign has been damaged by Nominet smears.

If there are any lawyers out there who would like to handle a £2million defamation action for free then please get in touch.

The reality is that we know that there is only one person on the planet who can afford a defamation claim right now, and that is Lesley Cowley, and joking apart I think that another round of litigation for 3 years would kill Emily. So, we have to take it.

In the meantime, we have been advised that the misleading statements to members are potentially breaches of directors’ duties - and it is up to the membership to address those allegations. I tried to raise it with Minister Ed Vaisey and he’s referred it back to the membership saying that he has no locus to intervene.

 

[Edwin]

I can see the dilemma. Also (with my "I am not a lawyer" hat prominently on my head) wouldn't it potentially be much simpler/cheaper to get a "cease and desist" injunction against Nominet (and any other parties that need to be named) to prevent them repeating that specific piece of misinformation? That's a very "small win" vs defamation of course, but at least it would plug the continuing leak of misinformation and limit the damage to that already done.

 

[Admin]

The statement was also sent as a personal letter from Lesley Cowley to Emily’s clients and others.

Is this not enough proof to show harassment?

Admin

 

[Lucien Taylor]

Edwin and Admin, thank you for sharing the conundrum.

We have looked at this, and the breaches issue as you know. There is no cheap option I am afraid. To get a simple injunction you have to fight the case behind the scenes (£200K quoted) and more importantly cover their legal costs if they can catch you out on a technicality. In my experience, Nominet fight ruthlessly, relentlessly and expensively. Apparently, Jay lost his house settling their claim for costs, and I understand that they are trying to strike out Graeme’s case before it can be heard, plus costs.

Normally, you would expect to send a few objecting letters, and they back down and settle. In my experience, Nominet won’t settle and won’t negotiate.

Thank you Admin, yup we asked the Police for their view on harassment - 1. it has to be repeated events (two shoutings of abuse at the neighbour), 2. Personal not corporate. Nominet spotted that and were quick to point out that the letters weren’t written by Lesley, just made to look so within an overall strategy agreed by the board.

The only realistic option is to appeal to anyone with a conscience on the board to take these allegations seriously, to listen to their members, and to bring out the peacemakers.

For me, Paul Keating nailed it yesterday. Whatever the subject of debate, the core problem is that the members have trust issues with the board. Until the board accepts that and tries to address it, it will keep bubbling through in every issue - direct.uk, registrar reform, handling of elections, statements to members whatever.

I repeat my offer to engage in any peacemaking bridge-building process. Nominet has refused all offers and continues to treat myself and Emily as anti-Nominet. In the meantime, we will continue to protest and fight for a better Nominet

 

[Paullas]

I for one found yesterday it a complete waste of time. it was like watching baby tv (other baby channels available). I am also now fed up of this and would like to ask the people in the know if it is possible to go for an EGM? as this is clearly getting out of hand now IMHO.