Nominet Election

[JimDavies]

I am standing for the Nominet board.

I have a track record of standing up for members. I did that when I was on the board in 2008/2009 and was one of the early supporters of the Public Benefit campaign.

My main policies are :

1. Price Cuts - reduce prices back to the pre-commercialisation rate of £2.50 a year.
2. Fix the broken constitution - including weighted voting WeightedVoting.uk
3. Trust the members - They got it right with the EGM, listen to what they have to say.

Details JimDavies.co.uk

Happy to answer any questions.

Voting closes at Noon on Friday!

 

[Nigel]

Your track record is good enough for me - you have our vote Jim

 

[JimDavies]

I was on a retainer fo 123Reg in 2008. It was widely known and they nominated me for the board. I declared that and other client details at the time, in writing, when appointed. It was approved by the then chairman. It was totally transparent. I have not worked for 123 since about 2009 or thereabouts. Any suggestion that I failed to disclose my interests at the time is untrue.

There was a claim made by the executive on behalf of Nominet. It was later withdrawn. Nominet and their insurance company paid all of the costs.

Not long after I left the board, the then CEO of 123Reg became a Nominet director, without objection from the Nominet excutive. Draw your own conclusions.

Since you raise it, I have given a clear declaration of interests in the member pack.

On the other hand, Volker works for CentralNic, yet says no associate of his is a registrar.

Likewise Kieren, who is employed by IFFOR, which is wholly funded (under a contract) by the .xxx regsitry ICM/GoDaddy. He says no one connected to him is a registrar, when in fact his company is wholly funded by the biggest registrar.

I don't think either of those answers is accurate.

 

[JimDavies]

Do I take that as an apology for the false claim that I was not open and honest with my declaration of interests in 2008?

The company is the Nominet member and registrant of the domains you refer to. So again, I think you are wide of the mark. It's no secret that Angus owns the company, you've even said it yourself.

I'm also not sure I follow the connection you seem to want to draw between funding counsel's opinion on weighted voting and subscriptions; to getting a possible price reduction if I am elected. You'll have to explain that better to me.

 

[JimDavies]

Well I can't speak to what you have been given by Nominet. However, it is a matter of record that the claim was withdrawn. Either discontinued or dismissed, I don't recall which.

The link to the funding of the opinion is clear. If you think Angus is motivated by a potential very small change (for him) gain in one of his companies' overheads, I'd say you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. The number of steps needed to make out the chain of events you suggest as a motive is long and tenuous, at best. Alternatively, and a bit more simply, this has been an issue for a long time and needs to be sorted out. He decided to get an opinion to help do that.

 

[JimDavies]

First, it's not tens of thousands a year. Look up the numbers.

Secondly, when I was on the board last time, I wasn't paid because the then contract was not suitable for an independent director. So I chose to remain independent, rather than take the income. So anyone who knows me (Angus was there at the time) would be very unwise to think I'd do anything if I didn't think it was the right thing to do.

I have the price cut policy because I think it is wrong that Nominet has retained the increased prices that were introduced to fund the commercial ventures it was spending money on, when that is not the current company policy. Also, with so much surplus in the bank, it does not need to be making an additional £6 million or so a year that the increased prices bring in. My view has zero to do with anyone's portfolio or registrar business model. I just don't think it is right for that extra to still be charged and I have set out why and how it is costed here

 

[LCHappy]

The link to the funding of the opinion is clear. If you think Angus is motivated by a potential very small change (for him) gain in one of his companies' overheads, I'd say you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

If you'd been reading @Trauiner posts for a while, this would be obvious.

 

[JimDavies]

How realistic are the price cuts if you are elected, would you have the power to push them through? Do you have a 'Plan B' if you aren't able to implement them?

Nominet can obviously afford the cut as the last promotion was even cheaper than £2.50 per year for a 2-year renewal. It also wasn't lost on me that the last promotion coincided at a time '3dweb' and 'dulwich' had an awful lot of renewals due, so @Trauiner I would suggest there is some preferential treatment happening anyway, so why not reduce the prices permanently so we all can benefit?

That's a very fair question. I have said that I would ask for it to be on the agenda for my first board meeting. Both directors who were elected last year were in favour of price cuts - but also have quite fairly declared a conflict of interests as they have a large number of domains under management at their companies. I don't know what Phil's position is. I would prepare what I would hope would be a good argument for the reduction, to go primarily to the appointed NEDs and Chair, none of whom I have met. I think it is a strong argument, I hope I could make it well. At this point, I think that is about as far as I can see.

The promotions are an interesting thing, not least because I understand the timing last year meant a fairly significant reduction in voting power for those who took it up. I believe the date paid up domains were calculated and the date the promotion domains could be paid meant they were "lost" for voting purposes last year. But I agree with you, I prefer a simple price cut, rather than promotions.