Nominet rocked by disability discrimination ruling

[anthony]

The truth is out, now reported by the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...cked-by-disability-discrimination-ruling.html

 

[Brassneck]

The truth is out, now reported by the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...cked-by-disability-discrimination-ruling.html

Interesting stuff. Are the details of the judgement etc published anywhere?

Stephen.

 

[anthony]

Interesting stuff. Are the details of the judgement etc published anywhere?

Stephen.

Tribunal have told me it's ok to publish, given the public nature of these hearings, so i'm sure it'll all crop up in due course.

 

[sdsinc]

It's the domainers' fault !

 

[grantw]

It's the domainers' fault !

It's not a proper Nominet article without a mention of the 2008 domainer takeover that never actually happened!!!

Grant

 

[anthony]

...Remind me, did we brush aside the people that were warning us about things like this as conspiracy theorists and vote away all our rights in the last policy vote?

Quite possibly, but these are the lessons you learn in life I'm afraid.

 

[namealot]

There are a lot of legal buds of all the professions though associated with them maybe it was a sort of donation to the legal society through legal fees they’d never hide something and not be totally transparent and honest though that would make them like all the others

 

[anthony]

http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest/?contentId=9468

"...There is no ongoing financial impact on Nominet as a result of the tribunal decision, as the legal costs and award have already been fully accrued for the accounting periods in question."

So what? Perhaps Nominet might actually declare the more interesting information here, namely the actual figures themselves rather than have it leaked out by the Press too. For example, is it greater or less than any bonuses that have been paid from the same period, that would be an interesting read.

"Professor Garratt always had the final say on any suggestions or corrections that came from the Nominet Board and has since confirmed again that the report conclusions were his own."

What were these corrections?

Additional Link with more information revealed:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/17/nominet_takeover_gov/

Quote from article:

...Nominet was told to pay over £100,000 in damages to Taylor as a result of constructive dismissal and disability discrimination. The case concluded a year ago, but reporting restrictions were only recently lifted.

Emily Taylor on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/etaylaw

 

[poetry]

agm 2009 reza

unfortunately in light of the Telegraph article Nominet's claims at this years agm when challenged on this seem all the more hollow. In the light of the current crisis these clips at AGM in 2009 are must see


https://vimeo.com/47683416

also the questions on emily taylor case and more at this years AGM (from 59th minute to 1hr 10 mins)

http://www.nominet.org.uk/governance/agm/agmwebcast/?contentId=3279

It seems bizarre that nominet do not archive all the AGM's on site and that they are not subject to the freedom of information act

 

[Admin]

Funny watching them trying to answer such simple questions.

Admin

 

[anthony]

unfortunately in light of the Telegraph article Nominet's claims at this years agm when challenged on this seem all the more hollow. In the light of the current crisis these clips at AGM in 2009 are must see


https://vimeo.com/47683416

£multi-million losses on investments then, interesting!

 

[anthony]

Please read below the latest emails released in this saga:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19550952

These make for a very interesting read.

 

[grantw]

Please read below the latest emails released in this saga:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19550952

These make for a very interesting read.

On the face of it this totally stinks. I hope the story gets picked up by more news sites from a non FoI angle!!

Grant