- Joined
- Dec 25, 2004
- Posts
- 1,974
- Reaction score
- 388
As I don't seem to have been accepted to make comments at the moment....
I would like to object and correct the following posts made at:
Nominet Passes Governance Test With Flying Colours - circleid.com
Nominet passes governance test with flying colours - kierenmccarthy.com
1. Kieren says that "it was domainers frustrated with what they viewed as unfair decisions, who started using Nominet's own systems to put representatives on Nominet's Board and Public Advisory Body". I may be a domainer, however how do you explain how I got the most votes anyone has ever got in a PAB election? (you can see from my Linkedin CV I have varied interests including being a registrar). Due to the weighted voting rights you do not get elected to Nominet or even pass EGM resolutions unless you have wide support. Also please identify the other domainers that got elected? - Jim Davies for example is an IP lawyer the last time I checked.
2. Kieren also says that: "The Board will be expanded from the current six (four non-exec directors plus CEO and chairman) to 11 (three independent directors and up to two more Nominet executives)".
This is incorrect as I understand it will be upto 10 directors:
3 appointed independent non-executive directors
4 elected non-executive directors and
up to 3 executives with an initial position that we would have the CEO and one other.
Governance
3. Kieren also says "Change the membership pricing model."
As a small member of Nominet I am so greatful and relieved that the first half of article 19A remains intact making this not possible. See draft articles http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/40041_Draft_Articles_final.pdf £100 + vat is affordable every year and I do comply to everything Nominet request from me. Therefore I also disagree with "Start enforcing some compliance" as Nominet do this already.
4. Kieren says that "A HUGE number of Nominet members aren't really doing anything". In my opinion members do not renew their membership without using it - they are just using it for different reasons and not voting. For example dropcatchers have to become members in order to use the DAC: Domain Availability Checker How about licensing the DAC differently like the Public Register Search Service (PRSS) currently is? Public Register Search Service If you take a look at the membership figures they are actually going down - see board reports:
"As at 31 December 2009 there were 2,805 active members".
"There were 2891 active members and 4031 active tags as at 30th November 2007".
5. As a journalist I would also expect him to ask BERR for a comment on this and why the Public Interest articles were necessary. They may not wish to reply however you could always put in a Freedom of Information request.
However that said I do agree with him on many points raised and overall a good analysis of the situation.
I would like to object and correct the following posts made at:
Nominet Passes Governance Test With Flying Colours - circleid.com
Nominet passes governance test with flying colours - kierenmccarthy.com
1. Kieren says that "it was domainers frustrated with what they viewed as unfair decisions, who started using Nominet's own systems to put representatives on Nominet's Board and Public Advisory Body". I may be a domainer, however how do you explain how I got the most votes anyone has ever got in a PAB election? (you can see from my Linkedin CV I have varied interests including being a registrar). Due to the weighted voting rights you do not get elected to Nominet or even pass EGM resolutions unless you have wide support. Also please identify the other domainers that got elected? - Jim Davies for example is an IP lawyer the last time I checked.
2. Kieren also says that: "The Board will be expanded from the current six (four non-exec directors plus CEO and chairman) to 11 (three independent directors and up to two more Nominet executives)".
This is incorrect as I understand it will be upto 10 directors:
3 appointed independent non-executive directors
4 elected non-executive directors and
up to 3 executives with an initial position that we would have the CEO and one other.
Governance
3. Kieren also says "Change the membership pricing model."
As a small member of Nominet I am so greatful and relieved that the first half of article 19A remains intact making this not possible. See draft articles http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/40041_Draft_Articles_final.pdf £100 + vat is affordable every year and I do comply to everything Nominet request from me. Therefore I also disagree with "Start enforcing some compliance" as Nominet do this already.
4. Kieren says that "A HUGE number of Nominet members aren't really doing anything". In my opinion members do not renew their membership without using it - they are just using it for different reasons and not voting. For example dropcatchers have to become members in order to use the DAC: Domain Availability Checker How about licensing the DAC differently like the Public Register Search Service (PRSS) currently is? Public Register Search Service If you take a look at the membership figures they are actually going down - see board reports:
"As at 31 December 2009 there were 2,805 active members".
"There were 2891 active members and 4031 active tags as at 30th November 2007".
5. As a journalist I would also expect him to ask BERR for a comment on this and why the Public Interest articles were necessary. They may not wish to reply however you could always put in a Freedom of Information request.
However that said I do agree with him on many points raised and overall a good analysis of the situation.
