Our old friend David Thornton, beloved Board member of Nominet, has been active on a media platform overnight. He proposes (and is this an approach being more widely considered by the Board) that in the future members should be excluded from the governance of the company. Instead he wants to turn Nominet into a public 'for profit' company, controlled by shareholders. Of course, this could mean Nominet shares being bought up by one or a few very large companies, which would mean that they get effective control of decisions like domain price and executive pay, and the whole direction of Nominet. The regular pattern in the tech industry is that, once this happens, large 'predator' companies tend to 'consolidate' their power by consuming smaller companies. This proposal of David's would seem to be an extension of the expand into the corporate world tendencies of Russell, with people who used to be members to whom the company was accountable, being removed from governance. This 'vision' of David's is on another planet from the EGM objectives. He doesn't seem to want to be accountable to members a day longer than necessary. In his view, members' role is to have access to domains at wholesale price, but power over future prices would pass to dominant shareholders. It's the opposite direction to where the supporters of the EGM want Nominet to go. He wants to take members' power away, whereas over 400 members have supported the EGM and want to protect Nominet from corporate predators, keep Nominet not-for-profit, and see it return to what it was originally tasked to do. His proposal, I suggest, would abandon all semblance of the company being accountable to 'members', in favour of 'the big boys' who will move in, and determine pay and prices. If his proposal reflects wider Nominet thinking about the future, then far from 'wanting to listen to members', the outcome would be the removal of members altogether, as an inconvenient check on company ambition - David likening us to 'members of a Golf Club'. Shares would get bought up and the market and the corporates would take over. This is my assessment of his views, but of course David could come here and speak for himself providing he didn't come under a pseudonym as some believe he has before, or unless the site owner regarded him as 'persona non grata'. As things stand, 'what David thinks' is far less important than 'what the members think' at the EGM. His proposal seems to be exactly what Simon Blackler and the 400+ supporters of the EGM are opposed to.