Weighted Voting

[Whois-Search]

What do Nominet members here think about the Weighted Voting changes being discussed on Nom-Steer ?

 

[richard]

As I am currently standing for PAB election I feel I must comment

Personally as the recent EGM elections have shown it needs some form of capping of vote %ages to prevent the 3 main voters from pushing through their opinions.

Ideally 1 membership 1 vote

 

[Whois-Search]

I have 0 domains on my TAG

Pipex must have 480 x 1043 = 500,640 domains

Total value £5 x 500,640 = £2,503,200

Why shouldn't they have more "opinion" ?

 

[sneezycheese]

I have 0 domains on my TAG

Pipex must have 480 x 1043 = 500,640 domains

Total value £5 x 500,640 = £2,503,200

Why shouldn't they have more "opinion" ?

Sorry Whois…

Because ‘maybe’ the fact that Pipex doesn’t have 500k domains (i.e. they’re not the ultimately the registrants).

Now here’s an interesting idea: How about for every domain a registrant registers one Nominet ‘share’ was issued? This would ‘truly’ represent a balanced approach to the biggest ‘stakeholders’ (i.e. registrants) in a proportional and ‘fair’ way. Let’s face it; it’s the registrants in the end who pay for and drive all of this!!!

It seems a shame that those that fund this operation (i.e. the registrants) and are the reason Nominet exists, are not represented ‘in any seeming way’ in the running of Nominet. It’s a shame really – Not very customer focused I would say.

 

[Whois-Search]

Would be interesting to see who the 'top registrants' were .........

 

[richard]

I have 0 domains on my TAG

Pipex must have 480 x 1043 = 500,640 domains

Total value £5 x 500,640 = £2,503,200

Why shouldn't they have more "opinion" ?

We all pay the membership fee to Nominet. This then gives us merely the privilege of purchasing domains at £5, therefore buying a domain is merely a perk of membership and shouldn't be used to judge how much say we have.

 

[retired member 1]

As I am currently standing for PAB election I feel I must comment

Personally as the recent EGM elections have shown it needs some form of capping of vote %ages to prevent the 3 main voters from pushing through their opinions.

Ideally 1 membership 1 vote

Richard Martin I presume?, I'm not sure I agree with the 1 membership/1 vote as above, there should be some kind of weighted vote with regards to either the amount of domains registered by the registrant or some other form, but I do agree that the current system has it's flaws.

Other than that some really good aims in your election statement....good luck!