EGM results - were the voting allocations correct?

[olebean]

A show of hands that a chairman passes is basically set in stone.

A poll - where all the data is available to be re-assessed - can be put back together if an error or errors are found. It can also be re-run.

As an example, a PLC I was dealing with forgot (genuinely) to send ballots to a small number of members in a particular class. After an EGM the error was noticed and they (or maybe the company solicitors who had missed it :twisted: ) had to pay a substantial sum for a complete re-run of the EGM - even though the outcome was never in doubt.

Beasty

Many thanks

What I meant was as there appears in princple to be an error what would it take for Nominet etc to re-run the process?

 

[sneezycheese]

What I meant was as there appears in princple to be an error what would it take for Nominet etc to re-run the process?

...The first (and most difficult) hurdle to cross would be for Nominet to admit that there has been an error and that it needs correcting! - After that the process is relatively simple!

 

[olebean]

...The first (and most difficult) hurdle to cross would be for Nominet to admit that there has been an error and that it needs correcting! - After that the process is relatively simple!

Oh, then here the thread ends?

 

[sneezycheese]

Oh, then here the thread ends?

...Not quite - I understand there are legal remedies 'if' Nominet were to play hardball - Which in the absence of any rebuttal from Nominet to the contrary, seems a likely scenario!

Like I said before - put a complaint into Companies House (it's free) - as they do take people to court - trust me!

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[Whois-Search]

At the very least an investigation is needed for the satisfaction of the
members who are concerned by the error. Even if it is just to find out why
Nominet didn't spot the duplicate members.

 

[sneezycheese]

It's also probably worth making a formal complaint to Nominet by using thier fomal complaints proceedure - then sit tight and see what you get back!

 

[Whois-Search]

Yes sneezy I think a formal complaint is the only way to go now.

We have tried Nom-Steer but keep getting sidetracked

 

[olebean]

Yes sneezy I think a formal complaint is the only way to go now.

We have tried Nom-Steer but keep getting sidetracked

Sidetracked?..

 

[Whois-Search]

Well I can't post it....... but it was Michael, James and I having a little lovers tiff

 

[olebean]

Well I can't post it....... but it was Michael, James and I having a little lovers tiff

Michael?...

 

[Whois-Search]

Michael?...

Toth .

 

[olebean]

I didnt realise "The Toth" is active on nom-steer

 

[Hazel Pegg]

I didnt realise "The Toth" is active on nom-steer

I wouldn't call him active. He pops in occasionally in between scuba diving and cocktails (or whatever it is he does to pass the time over in the T&C isles).

Hazel

 

[rob]

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/members/michaeltoth.html likewise on here

 

[olebean]

suba diving and cocktails

That is the life and good luck to him..

 

[Whois-Search]

There has now been a statement by Nominet:

Latest News

This is what I posted to Nom-Steer about it:

I would like to thank Nominet 'publicly' for providing the statement.

This matter as far as I am concerned is now closed.

However just one small thing......

I think the "1 member" they are referring to is Angus Hanton?

While there were three more members that asked questions about this on
nom-steer: Ken Sorrie, Michael Toth and myself.

Also I was told by someone from Nominet that the number of Nominet members
is now down to around 2800+ maybe we should stop using 3000 until it gets
that high again. It will also be interesting to count the number of members
on the next voting rights allocation

 

[Whois-Search]

Actually the more I think about that second paragraph from Nominet:

Since the event, 1 of our 3,000 members has made serious allegations on
our mailing list about the validity of the result. The allegations are
that we failed to follow the rules regarding group company members, set
out in our Articles of Association, and therefore the weighted votes
allocated to members were incorrect; and that the independent scrutineers,
Popularis, were not competent or impartial. We strongly refute these
allegations.

- The more I see it as an extraordinary attack to discredit one members
concerns.

His questions were not "allegations" either he provided Nominet with a list
of linked members and news articles to prove they were linked.

I hope in future members can ask questions and provide evidence like this
without getting this kind of public response from Nominet.

As for Popularis they only checked what Nominet gave them. Just like when
they were given the wrong voting allocation rights at the AGM.

As I said below questions were also asked about this by other members on
Nom-steer and by other stakeholders off list.

I also said that IMO the matter was closed in the sense that apart from a
judicial review nothing else can be done about it - since Nominet and
Popularis have made a recount. I still feel though many people won't forget
this and still feel upset by it and have lost trust in Nominet.

If Nominet is not willing to listen to our concerns and is only going to
police itself then I won't be surprised when things like this happen again
in the future.