Notice of EGM — we need your help to secure a stable future for Nominet

The bias on this process is revolting.

"This link will take you to the voting platform where you will be able to view all of the information you need to make your choice."

And yet, this takes you to a page with a video telling you to vote no, and Nominet (or more precisely the board/exec) giving a one sided view with no mention of the reasoning behind the EGM.

Frankly, even for Nominet, this is shockingly bias (potentially misleading) and hugely disrespectful to members.

Vote YES to end this nonsense.

 

So there's no chance of this backfiring then and us ending up with a worse setup than before..

 

Nothing can be worse than what we have now.
While they refused to put Resolution 2 to the vote, the remaining board should have the spirit of this campaign in mind and appoint Sir Michael Lyons and Axel Pawlik as Chair and Deputy Chair as detailed very clearly from the beginning of the campaign: www.publicbenefit.uk

 

Quick question, and choosing my words carefully. How many egms can we ask for? And how regularly can they be?

 

I think the only constraint is that the requisition must have 5% support. I don't think there's a limit on how many EGMs/General meetings are called.

The logic of your question points to the reality the remnant Board members may face: if they refuse to follow the wishes of the membership, they should expect that a second EGM might be called to remove the remaining Board members, possibly excluding individual Director(s) who undertake to 'appoint' Sir Michael and Axel.

I think it might be instructive to those Directors not removed by Resolution 1, if they understand in advance that defying the membership's stated wishes won't stop the appointment of Sir Michael and Axel - it will just mean they lose their positions as well, which they don't need to if they are compliant.

I do not believe the Board is unanimous in all this. If a second EGM is necessary it would be tiresome, and I think at least one Director will be willing to remain and comply and appoint, in which case a new Board is built up from there. Otherwise, everyone goes, and in the absence of any Directors, power to appoint passes to the membership.

 

The latest propaganda email just arrived, Mr Putin or our old friend Donald would feel proud of this stuff, see the 3rd Paragraph:

'Need to Know: Approval of this resolution would mean serious disruption for our team and endanger the services we provide to you and our other members. It would send a message to government that Nominet is no longer capable of self-governance, and that would put our independence at risk. We need your support to keep Nominet on track. Please vote NO.'


Next they will say they are only going to count 'legal votes' and come up with a rouse to disenfranchise members votes !


JohnP

 

The emails are getting worse. They are starting to sound like boyfriend who has been or is about to be dumped for cheating.

Voted YES and Simon as Proxy.

 

351 Nominet members have signed up in favour of the 'YES' resolution to remove five directors.

How many members have spoken up in support of 'NO' apart from those directors themselves?

0? 1? 2?

 

Vote YES

Proxy: Simon Blackler

Done!

 

I think at this stage, the sheer lack of decorum surrounding this EGM has simply added to the, if not already determined, mindset of members. If nothing else, we might actually be thinking to ourselves, "Why didn't we do this sooner?". In the past, we've likely all wanted changes. And we haven't seen any welcome changes from Nominet, any benefits even – as members, for such a long time. I think we've perhaps individually felt like we are just 1%, when the facts could not be further from the truth. Joined in unity we are the 99% and we govern ourselves. Frankly, I think we do a damn better job than any of the suits on the board.

Voted: YES

Proxy: Simon Blackler - CEO Krystal Hosting (in case they decide to invent a magical Simon Blacker who doesn't turn up to vote).

 

Every time Nominet sends out a one-sided call to vote 'NO' (as they did yet again this morning) the number of people pledging support for 'YES' shoots up.

The voting process itself is shocking, because democratic process should remain impartial.

But remorselessly, the support for a new leadership grows: 351 now in favour of the motion.

That's not just 'a handful of troublemakers'. That's a huge revolt.

They say they 'want to listen to members' but actually they just don't want to hear what members are telling them.

Seems to me that, all along, they've just wanted members to be a tick box at the bottom of their own policies.

 

Yes, I’ve actually never seen something so obviously desperate as this. Surely they really should remain impartial and shouldn’t be trying to sway people to vote certain ways. Ridiculously, they’re asking the same people to vote no as the people who wanted the EGM in the first place - the members. Granted, not everybody will even be aware of it. I wonder what the other 75-80% of members are even doing? Check your emails! VOTE YES

 

This is what you get when you force people to become members in order to get better pricing.
Considering less than 10% bother to vote at a normal AGM, getting almost 20% to support and vote the EGM will be a devastating blow.

 

That's exactly what they're relying on, and that's exactly why they're reaching out to members. Typical voting turnout is very low, by trying to frame this as some kind of malicious action or hostile takeover, they're trying to get the ones who just joined to keep their portfolio cheap (which probably covers quite a few of us) to vote to keep the status quo. Which is also exactly the reason why they've frozen prices - you can guarantee they'll be fearmongering about measures any new execs might implement.

 

Can I just vote without proxies? That is coming up?

 

Yes you can attend the virtual meeting.

 

I got a phone call from Nominet there reminding me to vote, then went on to say "no one can tell you how to vote, btw most of the members are voting no" right XD

 

Very interesting. So they’re trying to influence members via phone calls. I wondered why I’d been seeing missed calls from them all week. Anybody else had this phone call? Seems like vote manipulation to me.

 

Oh no, guess definitely better make sure you vote yes then!