Voting rights allocation error - election void?

[Whois-Search]

As sent via nom-announce and on the nominet website:

Allocation of Voting Rights

Because of an error in way that domains were counted, the voting rights have been recalculated (still on the basis of the register on 24 August) on 26 September and are available as a pdf. They will be reaudited by Popularis Ltd, our elections scrutineer prior to the vote and any votes already cast corrected.

This means Nominet on the night before a board election Nominet corrected the voting rights allocation figures on their websites:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/9172_voting_rights_26092006.pdf

The old version can be found here:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/9082_voting_rights_29082006.pdf

See members like:

WAS: S00983 ANY-Web Limited 3,016

NOW: S00983 ANY-Web Limited 18,723

This means some members now have more votes than they thought they had until last night! Also we also based our election campaign on the figures.

Bob Gilbert acknowledged the error at the AGM however both Angus and I told him the election should be re-run.

Bob Gilbert he will get Popularis Ltd to 'look at the figures'.

It may well be legal to do this however will Popularis Ltd risk their reputation on this and declare it a fair election?

I feel very upset indeed by how now I could/not be elected based upon the wrong figures.

However I do accept mistakes happen .........

 

[grandin]

However I do accept mistakes happen

However I do accept mistakes happen...yes Andrew they do....more often than not in some domains

Did you win based on dodgy voting?

Lee

 

[fred]

What difference does it actually make as long as the right numbers are actually used to work out the result?

Also we also based our election campaign on the figures.

In what way?

I feel very upset indeed by how now I could/not be elected based upon the wrong figures.

Surely you will/will not be elected based on the correct figures?

 

[Whois-Search]

The result is not until tomorrow - so i'm posting this before the result.

Some members might not have voted because on the old allocation they may have say 251 votes and now they may have say 3000 votes.

Also when your a candidate like Peter Gradwell who targets the "bigger tag holders" then suddenly even companies like Any-Web have more voting power under the new figures.

 

[fred]

Some members might not have voted because on the old allocation they may have say 251 votes and now they may have say 3000 votes.

Well, given that even 1 vote can make a difference, if people don't vote then that's their choice. It didn't take much effort, and there was no cost (except a tiny bit of ink) to vote, so not voting because of the number of votes they thought they had is a poor excuse!

Also when your a candidate like Peter Gradwell who targets the "bigger tag holders" then suddenly even companies like Any-Web have more voting power under the new figures.

Fair enough, but would you have done anything differently?

 

[Whois-Search]

I don't have the same "contacts" as the others do to have done anything different.

However the point is I didn't find out about the "error" until Angus mentioned it in the AGM room and could no longer do anything about it.

If we all had the correct figures since 29/08/2006 then maybe we could have done things different.

 

[mishmash]

If the results are shown to be the same under both allocations of votes then I think Nominet will have got away with it. If not I think the election ought to be re-run.

If Nominet don't do that voluntarily I don't think that it should be down to an individual member, or group of members to bring legal action as suggested during the AGM - I would think it reasonable for the Government - presumably the DTI, to step in.

 

[Beasty]

Well, given that even 1 vote can make a difference, if people don't vote then that's their choice. It didn't take much effort, and there was no cost (except a tiny bit of ink) to vote, so not voting because of the number of votes they thought they had is a poor excuse!



Fair enough, but would you have done anything differently?

Indeed that is probably true when it's one member-one vote or something equally straightforward.

However, if people (mistakenly) thought their view was incidental because of the weighted voting system - who's to say that the error did not impact on how/if they voted. One could say that if you invent a complex voting arrangment - you have strict liability to get it right.

If the results are shown to be the same under both allocations of votes then I think Nominet will have got away with it. If not I think the election ought to be re-run.

I remember a vote involving a PLC where a small class of shareholders was accdientally left out or given a reduced voting allocation. When the error was discovered, the law firm handling the meeting (or at least their indemnity insurers) had to pick up the bill for a second EGM.

There was never an issue that the result would have been different - the issue was proper due process pure and simple. Given that it would have cost a substantial sum - I doubt it was done for fun - but because they had to.

 

[olebean]

What I would like to know is..

When did they discover the error, did Fay and Gordon (being directors) know before the other candidates and who made the error

 

[retired member 1]

My voting rights went from 251 > 900+ IIRC, I didn't vote in any case, missed the deadline by someway.

Good luck to all the candidates.

 

[Whois-Search]

What I would like to know is..

When did they discover the error, did Fay and Gordon (being directors) know before the other candidates and who made the error

Nominet have not yet said when they discovered the error. Denesh Bhabuta just said this on Nom-Steer:

I asked Bob directly, and he said he did not know and he "thought" it
was not too long before they announced it. I am extremely surprised
that as Chairman of Nominet he did not know the answer.

Also during the AGM break Gordon Dick (re-standing) came straight up to me and said:

I would like you to know I knew nothing about the error and when it was mentioned in the AGM by Angus it was the first time I to heard about it.

 

[gordon]

Also during the AGM break Gordon Dick (re-standing) came straight up to me and said:

Andrew,
Your quote of me is slightly wrong. I said that the first time I saw the corrected voting rights was after the error was announced on nom-announce by Nominet. That was the day before the AGM.

I believe the nom-announce was sent about 12noon and I first saw the correct rights while sitting in the airport waiting to go to the AGM at approximately 1245.

Gordon

 

[olebean]

Gordon / Andrew

IMO that clears the issue of electoral advantage, there is of course the issue of who appears to have made such a blunder, whether the errors have been corrected

 

[Whois-Search]

Andrew,
Your quote of me is slightly wrong. I said that the first time I saw the corrected voting rights was after the error was announced on nom-announce by Nominet. That was the day before the AGM.

I believe the nom-announce was sent about 12noon and I first saw the correct rights while sitting in the airport waiting to go to the AGM at approximately 1245.

Gordon

I apologize Gordon - that will teach me not to have checked my email on Hilton Serve.........or Jay Net

 

[grandin]

who won

Who won? Do they now get paid? Was it all worth it? Personally the timing was a bit crap given .mobi went live tues...luckily kept my eye on the ball and secured....kebabs.mobi

Lee

 

[Beasty]

Who won? Do they now get paid?

Good question - anyone nearer the action know anything yet?

I believe that the non-execs on the board are paid - as is normal for such things - though I have no idea how much. I believe it's the PAB who are not paid.

 

[grandin]

bump skip jog

beasty when you say 'Good question' do you truly mean good assertion and you put your post in the wrong thread?????????????????????????????????????????

Lee

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Who won?

September 28 2006
The results of the 2006 Board election which took place at this week's AGM will be posted in due course here on the Nominet web site. We anticipate them being available during the afternoon of 29 September 2006.
Latest News

 

[Beasty]

beasty when you say 'Good question' do you truly mean good assertion and you put your post in the wrong thread?????????????????????????????????????????

Lee

Hi Lee

No. You asked "Who won?" - I replied "Good question".

 

[Beasty]

September 28 2006
The results of the 2006 Board election which took place at this week's AGM will be posted in due course here on the Nominet web site. We anticipate them being available during the afternoon of 29 September 2006.
Latest News

Hi Hazel

I thought yesterday people were saying to expect the election results today - now I see you've linked to news that they will be out tomorrow. Some reason for the delay?