Nominet NED election time again

Discussion in 'Nominet General Information' started by martin-s, May 25, 2018.

  1. Michael Benton United Kingdom

    Michael Benton New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2018
    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    You must know this to be a blatantly untrue statement.

    Looking back, you lost in 2015 (the first person to be knocked out of the running). Why do you believe that was and what's really changed since?

    Denesh lost last year and was the encumbant (sic) then (2017). He came third of three candidates (even beaten by a candidate who isn't even standing this year). Why are you advocating for him this year when he was on the Board last year; a Board you wish to see changed?

    Most only come out of the woodwork when there's an election on!!!!!!

    Don't know him well enough to mention Othello Technology Systems Ltd went backrupt with him as a director?

    Also don't know him well enough to point out the multiple ICANN breach of accreditation notice his registrar Astutium has had and currently has? Here (2013) and Here (current). It's noted that he's appealing the current breach notice but the registrar he is director of has the potentially to be discredited.[/QUOTE]
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
     
  3. Michael Benton United Kingdom

    Michael Benton New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2018
    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    You must know this to be a blatantly untrue statement.

    Looking back, you lost in 2015 (the first person to be knocked out of the running). Why do you believe that was and what's really changed since?

    Denesh lost last year and was the encumbant (sic) then (2017). He came third of three candidates (even beaten by a candidate who isn't even standing this year). Why are you advocating for him this year when he was on the Board last year; a Board you wish to see changed?

    Most only come out of the woodwork when there's an election on!!!!!!

    Don't know him well enough to mention Othello Technology Systems Ltd went backrupt with him as a director?

    Also don't know him well enough to point out the multiple ICANN breach of accreditation notice his registrar Astutium has had and currently has? Here (2013) and Here (current). It's noted that he's appealing the current breach notice but the registrar he is director of has the potentially to be discredited.
     
  4. othellotech United Kingdom

    othellotech Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2009
    Posts:
    23
    Likes Received:
    2
    My apologies to David, I'd miscalculated due to the way I'd sorted my s/sheet, it's 3/4 of the current member elected NEDs (#4, #13 and #16 - 1% of 2388 being ~24)

    I know exactly why - I didn't get enough position #1 votes :(

    * a couple of people who had declared they'd vote for me failed to vote (at all), which would have altered the calculation (but not the final result as I'd still have gone out later in the calculation)
    * the bulk of my support then (and now) is from small registrars and a hundred of those didn't outweigh 1 larger registrar voting for their own candidate
    * despite getting the #2 slot from a number of members, if eliminated in round1 or a candidate goes straight through in round1 those dont get counted (but having been eliminated it means who put me as #1 and someone else as #2 do count for that candidate)

    He has consistently advocated a member-centric approach for Nominet, something which I firmly believe in.

    People go bankrupt not companies , companies can go insolvent, although that's not what happened in this case, but yes, one of my companies out of dozens got into a situation that wasn't resolvable, and so was allowed to be liquidated

    And the largest Nominet registrar and the #3 registrar are both currently being sued by ICANN - disagreements with the "regulator" in the gtld space do happen
     
  5. monaghan United Kingdom

    monaghan Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    63
    Unlike the major political elections, are we not supposed to be voting based on what we believe the person will do for the members rather than whether we like the person or the company they work for? Each potential candidate has to be "vetted" so that they would be able to serve if elected.

    Let's focus on providing a board member that will do their best to serve the interests of as many members as possible.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 2
  6. monaghan United Kingdom

    monaghan Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    63
    Just a reminder to read the statements (watch the webinar replay if you want, I personally don't think there were many useful questions asked) and place your votes, I'd love it if you voted for me, however, please vote even if you don't vote for me, we need to get a much better turnout for these votes if we're going to show Nominet that members do actually care about what happens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. RobM

    RobM Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2012
    Posts:
    2,034
    Likes Received:
    224
    Would that be members with a few hundred votes or those with several million? Because those of us with only a few hundred won't be showing them anything - as has been proven year after year.
     
  8. aZooZa

    aZooZa Well-Known Member Exclusive Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    4,714
    Likes Received:
    146
    I think Alex's post was meant in spirit rather than practicality. Good luck to him.
     
  9. dee

    dee Well-Known Member Acorn Supporter

    Joined:
    May 2013
    Posts:
    1,225
    Likes Received:
    126
    Can anyone point me to voting url please? Can't see anything in control panel and searching Nominet site brings up 2015 stuff but not much else
     
  10. monaghan United Kingdom

    monaghan Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    63
    You'll need a password as well as the URL. Check your main account email as the details would have been sent there, if not, ping an email with your TAG / membership number to Nominet and they can re-issue the login details - elections@nominet.uk
     
  11. dee

    dee Well-Known Member Acorn Supporter

    Joined:
    May 2013
    Posts:
    1,225
    Likes Received:
    126
    Thanks Alex. I'll ping them a mail. I checked my email history and nowt.
     
  12. isurveyor United Kingdom

    isurveyor Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2013
    Posts:
    51
    Likes Received:
    1
    Pm sent.
     
  13. monaghan United Kingdom

    monaghan Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    63
    There's a difference between showing you care enough to engage in the voting process and having enough of the vote share to make a difference to the outcome, however, with the capping in place enough of the little votes can make a difference to the outcome when there are multiple seats up for grabs, however, I do understand the feeling that nothing will change.
     
  14. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    49
    The voting email was sent on 26th June from: OnlineVoting@ElectoralReform.co.uk

    Subject: Nominet UK - AGM and Election of Non-executive Directors 2018

    And if you haven’t already voted they sent a reminder last night with the same subject.

    If you search for “OnlineVoting” on your phone it will come up. If we can increase the turnout then the voting cap of Godaddy etc can be dragged down to >30k from 50k

    As for the questions on the webinar....

    I did ask three but if I hadn’t asked any, you would have been answering the backup questions from Nominet !

     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2018
  15. othellotech United Kingdom

    othellotech Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2009
    Posts:
    23
    Likes Received:
    2
    The singular impact of their vote (6.2million votes even capped at 3% would be 186k) would be potentially diminished [if the other votes were for a different choice] but the capped amount would _increase_ not decrease as it's based on # of votes cast

    The very simplified version would be ...

    If 50 members with 2000 vote A and GD vote B the total cast would be 6.3million votes, and then individual max would be set to 3% of that i.e 189k = 100k for A and 189k for B

    If 150 members with 2000 and GD the total cast would be appx 6.5million votes, and then individual max would be set to 3% of that i.e 195k which would make it 300k for A and 195k for B

    [its more convoluted than that but the basic idea is there]

    The # of votes before you get capped increases the more votes cast (as opposed to the more voters)
     
  16. PoshTiger United Kingdom

    PoshTiger Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2011
    Posts:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    27
    When's David going to accept the hand he's been dealt by nature and get rid of the double combover?!?!

    If you shave it off - I'll vote for you! :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  17. Skinner

    Skinner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2008
    Posts:
    4,604
    Likes Received:
    128
    Did anyone else get a post card from David to Vote ?

    I'm sure I got one such thing in the mail a few years ago too.
     
  18. martin-s United Kingdom

    martin-s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2012
    Posts:
    3,118
    Likes Received:
    188
    I don't think we need to make any of this personal. And it would take more than a change in hairstyle for many of us in any case.
     
  19. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    49
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 1:22 PM
  20. Michael Benton United Kingdom

    Michael Benton New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2018
    Posts:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you please post a list of the names of your dozens of companies, here?

    "Sued" is materially different to a breach notice. Suing is often to do with a particular legal disagreement (a registrar and ICANN can choose to sue the other). A breach notice is due to perceived non-compliance of a registrar by ICANN (it's a one way thing. A registrar can't issue ICANN with a breach notice). You appear to have had quite a few breach notices:

    2013 - Astutium addressed to Rob Golding (you)
    2015 - Astutium addressed to Rob Golding (you)
    2018 - Astutium address to Rob Golding (you)

    This is all incorrect. You appear not to understand despite being a candidate.

    Rule 1: No voter can command more than 3% of the total uncapped votes cast in the election.
    Rule 2: Nobody can know the total uncapped votes cast in the election until after voting has ended.
    Rule 3: Only then can the cap be determined. The cap is determined using an iterative process.

    Your calculations are incorrect.

    Registrar "GD" would not have 189,000 votes because this number is a calculation of 3% of their 6,200,000 uncapped votes. The uncapped votes a member has is never relevant if they are surely to be capped.

    Here is a very easy example: Just three members decided to cast their vote. These are all the members that matter in the election. Any other members that didn't vote don't matter, whatever their uncapped vote allocations might have been. They don't matter because they didn't vote!

    Member A who voted - has 500,000 uncapped votes.
    Member B who voted - has 2500 uncapped votes.
    Member C who voted - has 2000 uncapped votes.
    No other members voted so they don't matter in this election.

    The 3% cap is calculated as follows:

    1. Add up the total number of uncapped votes cast. That's 500,000 + 2500 + 2000 = 504,500.

    2. The cap is calculated iteratively. This is how:

    500,000 votes (member A) + 2500 votes (Member B) + 2000 votes (Member C) = 504,500 total uncapped votes cast.

    Member A currently has 99.1% of the votes cast because 500,000 (Member A's uncapped votes) / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 99.1%. Members B and C have a combined 0.9% of the votes cast (100% - 99.1% = 0.9%).

    3. To reduce Member A's total vote down to 3% (i.e. to cap it at 3%) we have to go through a great many iterative calculations, reducing their voting allocation by 1 over and over again until their share of the votes cast reduces from 99.1% to 3%. Members B and C do not have their votes reduced because each already has less than 3% of the votes cast.

    Member A has 500,000 votes which is currently 99.1% of the votes cast but this needs reducing to 3%. We reduce 500,000 by 1 and do the calculation again.

    499,999 votes (member A) / 504,500 (total votes cast) * 100 = 99.1% still. Given 500,000 is such a large number the percentage difference is less than 0.1%. I won't write out each iterative step reducing 499,999 by 1 repeatedly because it'll be a hugely long thread. I'll skip some of it and demonstrate with fewer steps. Reduced steps exampled:

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes cast down to 30,000 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 5.94%. Much closer to the 3% cap but not there yet.

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes cast down to 20,000 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.96%. Even closer to the 3% cap but still not there yet.

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 17,000 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.36%. Even more closer to the 3% cap but alas, still not there yet!

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 16,000 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.17%. Still not there!

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,000 votes / 504,500 (total votes cast) * 100 = 2.97%. This is less than the 3% cap so it has been reduced too much. The cap on votes is somewhere between 15,000 and 16,000.

    I'll add some votes back on and reduce less.

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,250 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.02%. Getting very close to the magic 3%.

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,200 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.01%.

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,150 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.00297%.

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,145 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3,00198%.

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,140 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.00099108%.

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,139 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3.00079286%

    Reducing the Member A uncapped votes down to 15,135 votes / 504,500 (total uncapped votes cast) * 100 = 3% EXACTLY!

    The cap is 15,135 votes.

    No member who voted may have more than 3% of the total uncapped votes cast so in this example:

    Member A - had 500,000 uncapped votes. Now has 15,135 capped votes.
    Member B - had 2500 uncapped votes. Still has 2500 uncapped votes.
    Member C - had 2000 uncapped votes. Still has 2000 uncapped votes.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2018 at 4:17 PM
  21. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,656
    Likes Received:
    49
    Just a reminder that voting closes today at 12 noon.

    Please vote it only takes a minute:

    Search for an email from “OnlineVoting” for two security codes

    Go to www.ersvotes.co.uk/nominet2018

    Login and click on vote on NED election

    Note: the voting drag and drop doesn’t seem to work in Safari (iOS) so best to use Chrome

    Drag David Thornton & Alex Monaghan to the preference box