Personally I'm shocked and saddened to see the animosity continuing.
My reply on the Nominet Mail-List -
I am awake at this stupid time of the morning due to an exceptionally loud thunderstorm which ejected me from my slumber. Then I had to go find the cat. So here are my musings ....
I was, and still am, shocked by the opening remarks of the Chair. Until that moment I had remained relatively distanced from events surrounding a recent Employment Tribunal and had no intention of raising them at the AGM. I noted the comments in the formal Chair's Report that landed on my doorstep but decided that was understandable as the Tribunal had taken place and that couldn't really be ignored.
But to open the AGM with the verbal slapping down of those involved was a step too far for me. All credit to Emily Taylor for staying calm and composed. I couldn't have done so had I been the subject of the Chair's comments. Until that moment I was undecided as to how to vote on the Resolution to reappoint the Chair. Not that my vote against made any difference to the outcome!
That turned out to be just the first stage of the Nominet PR blitz/fudge. After 10 mins or so I wondered if the Chair was addressing the assembled members or any randoms who might see a webcast.The following presentations by the CEO and the Finance Director were less blatant but much in the same vein. "We, Nominet, are a groovy doovy company, keeping up with the rapid changes in the internet world, and here are a few slides and quotes to prove that. PS - ignore any troublemakers who question our entirely correct vision of the future".
This was followed by a slip-sliding around questions asked. A question about certain Directors seeking the advice of a QC being answered in the negative took on a new light when we were eventually told that legal advice had been taken from Nick Wenban-Smith (Nominet's in-house lawyer). Nick isn't a QC so those responding felt no need to let the audience know that Directors had received legal advice. They simply stated that they hadn't taken advice from a QC. Now I don't actually have a problem with Nominet's in-house lawyer advising Board members as to how conflicted they may or may not be. But I do have a problem with the inability of those concerned to not just say so. Having to wheedle out what is really not a contentious fact is depressing.
But not quite as depressing as seeing the CEO in instant possession of the numbers when a question was asked about Nominet's legal costs during the past year. Nick Wenban-Smith could only give an estimate as to the total costs but the CEO read from a sheet in front of her the exact costs relating to a certain Employment Tribunal. I didn't ask the question and wasn't really interested in the answer. But I was interested to note that the CEO had come prepared to answer that question.
As for my feelings about Nominet and its membership structure and the relationship between those who call the shots and those whose opinions count for diddly-shit when weighted voting kicks in - watch this space! I might even mention the end stakeholder community; a rather large group that Nominet didn't really address in its eagerness to assure the members that their interests were at the forefront of their thinking. Only a cynic would suggest that those members Nominet is interested in pleasing are the 'Top Twenty'.
PS - Thomas Vollrath was a 'no show'. Apparently had more important business commitments in Germany.
