Nominet non-exec election 2017

[aZooZa]

I voted solely for Phil Buckingham. Proposed by Angie Barrow and seconded by Reza Sobati - two people I have known in the business for a long time and respect. If you are a member, I suggest you vote however you see fit, and however small your holdings.

 

[ian]

What ever happened to Mr @invincible ?

 

[aZooZa]

@ian Last seen here in January. I don't want to speak ill of the 'departed' but I would suggest protagonist/antagonist as far as Nom/Acorn is concerned...

 

[Edwin]

I've voted too. I'll keep my own counsel as to how I allocated my vote, as I didn't see any "bad" candidates in this year's batch.

 

[Edwin]

@ian Last seen here in January. I don't want to speak ill of the 'departed' but I would suggest protagonist/antagonist as far as Nom/Acorn is concerned...

Cheerleader-in-chief probably sums it up more closely. But then David knows exactly how I feel about his attitude to Nominet anyway.

 

[RobM]

I won't be voting. Pointless position that is unable to stop any changes nominet make to benefit themselves and top registrars (with which they may have ties) at the expense of the consumer and smaller registrars.

 

[Jacob Colton]

Hi Rob,

As someone who is standing this year and someone that is a Director of one of the smaller registrars, I would like to think I do have the understanding and insight to help. I am the only one standing this year who comes from the smaller registrar and at the heart of what I want to achieve is working with all of the membership in that all voices are heard, no matter how big or small they are.

Let me know if you have any queries.

Regards,

Jacob

 

[RobM]

Interesting... do you have a link to some public info about yourself Jacob?

 

[aZooZa]

Nice to see candidates posting here. Kudos.

 

[Jacob Colton]

If you login to vote, you will be able to see my election statement / CV etc, otherwise happy to post a bit about myself here (if I am allowed to).

 

[Edwin]

All 4 candidates have comprehensive answers to various questions along with their CVs, backgrounds and qualifications for the role in the voting pack, accessible to all Nominet Members.

You should have received a username/pin combo in the last day or so that will unlock access to the info pack and to the voting tool.

 

[ian]

I'm not sold on voting either, just like @RobM, all seem to have a vested interest in profiting from decisions made, which in turn skews their participation. I'm a little uncomfortable with it tbh.

 

[Jacob Colton]

Hi Ian,

I can only speak for myself but my interest in the position is because I believe that Nominet is at the very heart of the UK internet and it has all the key players i.e. the 2.5k members as part of that community. By fully engaging that community and working together to innovate, I believe we can make the internet a better, safer and more diverse place to live and work. Having a reliable and resilient domain registry is crucial but so is constantly innovating, which is what this industry has always been about.

Regards,

Jacob

 

[aZooZa]

You can see where you are in the pecking order here:

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...s/2017/03/07170910/Voting-rights-AGM-2017.pdf

 

[RobM]

You can see where you are in the pecking order here:

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...s/2017/03/07170910/Voting-rights-AGM-2017.pdf

Shows what a farce it is:
123reg 2821370 votes
Godaddy 837643 votes
Me 1550 votes

'Nom: Hey guys would you like us to introduce an unwanted domain extension and increase prices on current ones? Top registrars will make more money because people will be forced into protecting their asset by registering the domain (most likely with you) whilst at the same time paying increased for what they already have.

TopReg: Hmmm let me think. Why would you do that because ultimately consumers are paying more for no increased value and any registrars who are not public facing will also be in the same boat?

Nom: Well it has nothing whatsoever to do with any vested interests or links via relatives or businesses from us to you top registrars - as you all know we are non-profit which means we could never do such a thing to make more money for ourselves. It is for everyone's best interests... well we say everyone I actually mean nominet and top registrars... but the plebs don't have a say so we'll throw them a non-executive guy to tell them how good things are for them. That should keep them happy.

TopReg: Well other members would not vote to agree.

Nom: We already thought of that - you have more votes than everyone else combined.... you can decide for everybody if you want to get richer at others expense - they won't be able to outvote you. It's just an illusion to make them think they have a say.

TopReg: Oh ok - by the way would you like a new house for all your troubles as we'll now be making oodles more thanks to you?

Nom: Yes please..'

I'm sure conversations don't go like that but not hard to imagine

 

[Edwin]

The top members are capped at 3% of the vote each, so it's much less disproportionate than their raw count would suggest.

 

[aZooZa]

The top members are capped at 3% of the vote each, so it's much less disproportionate than their raw count would suggest.

Indeed. It would be much more informative if Nominet sorted that list by vote entitlement and not account number. I can't be arsed to download and parse it, but I'm guessing there are 33 3%'ers that have broader commercial interests than us lowly members.

One member - one vote - works for me.

 

[Edwin]

One member one vote is ridiculous. It's a company not a democracy. An organisation which brings in 10,000x as much business as another one does should have a louder voice. That's just common sense.

In fact, the 3% cap has meant that as the big registrars eat each other and get bigger and bigger, they have progressively less and less say because they're stuck at 3% max.

Anyone who knows me at all will know I'm not a Nominet apologist! But there's a difference between justified and unjustified criticism. Deploring their commercial expansion away from domains is entirely justified. Complaining because the huge players have somewhat more say is not.

 

[aZooZa]

Fair comment Edwin. Just idealism - not commercialism - on my part.

 

[Edwin]

BTW I asked on the Nominet forum whether a "none of the above" option would be possible for non-exec elections and they've promised to feed the idea to the working group in charge of the voting process. That's not to say it will be implemented, but I'm vaguely hopeful it might. It would give a meaningful mechanism for a "protest vote" against the entire slate of candidates.