Egm 2

retired_member6 · Nov 10, 2006

sneezycheese said:
...are you 'sure' Hazel? - it does say 'firms of ALL kinds' :???:

Regards,

Sneezy.

The NTO, Bushwackers and Treatment are still available for gigs. :mrgreen:

sneezycheese · Nov 10, 2006

LeeOwen said:
The NTO, Bushwackers and Treatment are still available for gigs. :mrgreen:

...

:shock:

Here's a few more...

Mob Handed - Site for lads in the know

:twisted:

Crusader-K · Nov 11, 2006

gordon said:
What would you be wanting to vote against?
Gordon

The revised Memorandum includes phrases such as "any or all" and "world-wide".

Amongst other things, I am wanting to vote against Nominet having the power to spend its increasing cash-mountain setting up a team of International Account Managers and "New York" offices - instead of returning the built up cash reserves to its members.

The new Memorandum and Articles are far too broad and all encompassing.

Crusader-K · Nov 11, 2006

Crusader-K said:
The revised Memorandum includes phrases such as "any or all" and "world-wide".

Amongst other things, I am wanting to vote against Nominet having the power to spend its increasing cash-mountain setting up a team of International Account Managers and "New York" offices - instead of returning the built up cash reserves to its members.

The new Memorandum and Articles are far too broad and all encompassing.

I should have added :

Please no "There are no plans to ......." (today)

Whois-Search · Nov 12, 2006

Do you think 3.3.6 has got something to do with selling the DRS concept or system to the New Zealand registry Dispute Resolution Service ?

Even though I believe Nominet didn't sell the DRS software, Taylor Smith LTD did to both Nominet and the New Zealand registry ?

Hazel Pegg · Nov 12, 2006

Whois-Search said:
Do you think 3.3.6 has got something to do with selling the DRS concept or system to the New Zealand registry Dispute Resolution Service ?

Even though I believe Nominet didn't sell the DRS software, Taylor Smith LTD did to both Nominet and the New Zealand registry ?

And the problem is ..... ?????

Trust me (or not depending on how you feel) but I have crawled all over the Nominet/Taylor Smith connection and have failed to find anything except a lot of smoke and no fire.

Hazel

Whois-Search · Nov 12, 2006

Hazel Pegg said:
And the problem is ..... ?????

Trust me (or not depending on how you feel) but I have crawled all over the Nominet/Taylor Smith connection and have failed to find anything except a lot of smoke and no fire.

Hazel

I've had no problem with the Taylor Smith Ltd contract since Lesley replied to Ken Sorrie's questions on Nom-steer on 06 October 2006 13:45.

I was just suggesting 3.3.6 had more to do with this and nothing to do with a DRS review.

Also if Nominet was to sell DRS services this would mean those created by their own staff and not by any third party. So maybe even companies like Taylor Smith Ltd would lose out if Nominet employed some more techical/legal staff to sell such services.

Beasty · Nov 13, 2006

Hazel Pegg said:
If Nominet takes over a company then that former company becomes a part of Nominet and the usual rules about no dividends apply.

Why on earth would this be? A subsiduary company is a seperate legal person and so independent of the parent. A company part or wholly owned by Nominet does not automatically become "part of Nominet". In principle, there is nothing stopping it from retaining profits or paying them as dividends or salary or on any other basis approved by its shareholders - or doing anything else that a company can do. It would be divorced from Nominet's Mem and Arts and not bound by the restrictions that are in there.

Hazel Pegg · Nov 13, 2006

Beasty said:
Why on earth would this be? A subsiduary company is a seperate legal person and so independent of the parent. A company part or wholly owned by Nominet does not automatically become "part of Nominet".

You are right and I was wrong.

But under the proposed changes Nominet is constrained in what it can own as it must be beneficial to the objects of the company, so I'm not losing too much sleep over this.

Hazel

static · Nov 13, 2006

Beasty said:
Why on earth would this be? A subsiduary company is a seperate legal person and so independent of the parent. A company part or wholly owned by Nominet does not automatically become "part of Nominet". In principle, there is nothing stopping it from retaining profits or paying them as dividends or salary or on any other basis approved by its shareholders - or doing anything else that a company can do. It would be divorced from Nominet's Mem and Arts and not bound by the restrictions that are in there.

There appear to be conflicting interpretations about what the new resolutions could mean for the future operation of Nominet. Some, like Beasty, see it as carte blanche for the Board to do whatever it wants. Others, like Hazel, disagree. In these circumstances better to be cautious and vote no. I can't vote yes to changes that are unknown in their possible impact on the future of the company and the membership. It would be unwise for anyone to vote yes in these circumstances.

Beasty · Nov 13, 2006

Hazel Pegg said:
You are right and I was wrong.

But under the proposed changes Nominet is constrained in what it can own as it must be beneficial to the objects of the company, so I'm not losing too much sleep over this.

Hazel

I'll check on this and let you know whether I think your lack of misplaced sleep is sound!

Whois-Search · Nov 13, 2006

static said:
There appear to be conflicting interpretations about what the new resolutions could mean for the future operation of Nominet. Some, like Beasty, see it as carte blanche for the Board to do whatever it wants. Others, like Hazel, disagree. In these circumstances better to be cautious and vote no. I can't vote yes to changes that are unknown in their possible impact on the future of the company and the membership. It would be unwise for anyone to vote yes in these circumstances.

Your right Static and even I'm thinking about voting No now.

However at the end of the day its not going to matter how we vote is it?

With a voting rights allocation like this:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/9807_Voting_Rights.pdf

It's going to be Pipex and Schuld that decide (even with the cap) as only 10% of members vote.

So as at the last EGM .... Pipex got the blame:

What does Pipex have in the pipeline? - Industry sectors - Times Online

Maybe we should be emailing Jarrod Robinson our concerns.

After all they nearly put Peter Gradwell on the board at the AGM? I think Schuld is on the side of Fay Howard ????

olebean · Nov 13, 2006

For what it is worth, IMO the changes are a touch too far.... And I am in favour of Nominet being able to generate new business...

Whois-Search · Nov 14, 2006

I also hear this time Nominet is calling (by phone) members to see if they have voted?

As well as "Your Vote Counts" in big letters on the voting papers envelope.

Seems to be a push in getting people to vote......

It will be interesting to see if the 9% of members voting goes up this time.

static · Nov 14, 2006

Whois-Search said:
I also hear this time Nominet is calling (by phone) members to see if they have voted?

As well as "Your Vote Counts" in big letters on the voting papers envelope.

Seems to be a push in getting people to vote......

It will be interesting to see if the 9% of members voting goes up this time.

Lobbying hard are they? ;-)

Corporate professionals seeing a big 'opportunity' for themselves just over the horizon. If only they didn't have the tiresome inconvenience of members to overcome wouldn't life be so much wealthier for them. Carpet baggers. VOTE NO!!!!!!

Beasty · Nov 14, 2006

Proxy

Any Nominet member not going to the EGM who wants me to go on their behalf - please PM me to arrange for me to be appointed as their proxy.

Whois-Search · Nov 14, 2006

static said:
Lobbying hard are they? ;-)

Corporate professionals seeing a big 'opportunity' for themselves just over the horizon. If only they didn't have the tiresome inconvenience of members to overcome wouldn't life be so much wealthier for them. Carpet baggers. VOTE NO!!!!!!

Apparently they have ONLY been calling the BIG tag holders.

If they want this to be fair then they should call ALL members.

static · Nov 14, 2006

Whois-Search said:
Apparently they have ONLY been calling the BIG tag holders.

If they want this to be fair then they should call ALL members.

The BIG tag holders would be the ones to benefit most in the long run from certain changes that these resolutions would allow. It is an unholy alliance of like minded corporate types. Any SMALL tag holder would be bonkers to go along with these proposals, thus Nominet aren't on the phone to them.