Seb,
Out of the following candidates which one would you appoint to the board?
I can't honestly give you a properly thought out answer without spending a lot of time on this.. I don't think looking at the links you've provided alone is sufficient to determine the suitability. It would probably require a detailed conversation with each individual to ascertain their likely interest and thoughts. I would want to be sure they are going to think independently. It would also depend very much on what skills the board was looking for in the next few years that it was lacking.
> Professor Jonathan Zittrain
Jonathan is a very good 'ideas' person and I'm sorry he wasn't in a position to continue on the PAB. I think he would be the kind of person who comes up with ways to deal with things no one else might.
> Lord Erroll
Firstly I have to make it clear.. I have had the opportunity to interact with Lord Erroll due to his participation on the PAB. This means I have a better understanding of how he works, but it would be unfair to any others to state he's an obvious choice, so please don't consider this comparative.
If you've never met him, when you first do, he will change your view as to what you'd expect a member of the House of Lords to be. He has a high level of technical understanding.. to put this in context his first question when handed a USB stick was "is it USB 2.0?".. (not that this means much but it gives you the impression of what I mean.. he could have asked "what's this?"
).
He is a truly independent thinker and he would be of value to any board.
> Tim Berners-Lee
A well known person who clearly understands technology to a very high level. I think with him my primary question would be whether he would be committed to Nominet bearing in mind he's a very busy person. I think he would certainly bring an interesting perspective.
> Claire Milne
I don't think it would be possible for a DRS Expert to be a director of Nominet because of the potential conflict of interests. Clearly it would be possible for this issue to be eliminated another way. I don't know enough about her to say much more (and I don't think Nominet's website is going to make my mind up on that either). I suspect a lot of people (here especially) would have strong objections to this appointment
> Someone from Critchleys
..Nominet's former auditors.. Strange suggestion.
If an individual from that list had particular reasons to be considered maybe but I don't think they should be done so on the basis of their employment with Critchleys.
> Someone from IWF
Again I'm not sure that there would be a good reason to appoint "someone from the IWF".. If an individual within that list fitted the criteria, then it shouldn't bar them from being considered
> Or a Business Studies Graduate found on monster.co.uk
I do believe boards should have a mix of experience and age groups, but I'm not sure someone who has just graduated has the experience to sit on a board of a $15m company. This may read to some as an attack on Andrew but this is certainly not the case.. Let me expand..
I don't have an issue with someone who has recently graduated being on the board of Nominet any more than I think a degree should be expected in the first place. If the person has shown they have the other skills, then as far as I'm concerned the fact they've recently graduated is neither here nor there.
When I hired my last employee, I knew he had a degree in something computing related. It made no difference to me what that was in or whether they had graduated with first class honours or barely with a pass because I knew from their other work and recommendation that they were good for the job. I still don't remember what that degree was (although I enjoy listening to some of the stories about correcting lecturers
) -- Don't get me wrong.. I don't in any way think degrees are worthless.. or I wouldn't have spent four years getting mine.. but I think they only demonstrate some abilities.
When selecting who you'd want on an ideal board you need to look at the wider picture. To that extent, I wouldn't appoint Lord Erroll because he's a Lord.. because that would just be for looks.. If I was going to appoint him, I would not hesitate to do so even if he lost his title and membership of the House of Lords (highly topical since the discussion in politics about reforming it)..
It's about the skills of the individual, not the stereotype.
Which one would provide an impartial view on a issue like the DRS? Which one would risk their reputation as being "appointed" without members approval? Who would do it for 15k?
As I've said above, it's unfair for me to compare them on the basis I don't know them to the same extent. I would want to appoint someone who would give their honest independent opinion (otherwise they're redundant on the board.. you don't need parrots.. you can use a tape recorder to hear your own voice..).. and if they felt strongly enough that the board was doing something unconscionable, they would resign. (n.b. I expect the board will have disagreed on many issues and will in the future.. I'm not suggesting resignations over disagreements over particular items if there is simply a differing opinion).
I think the appointed members would be more 'influencers'.. As I'm sure you will find on the PAB, it's not about voting and winning.. it's about trying to get other people to look at things from different perspectives and come to a common view. This may not always be possible as you can't resolve fundamental differences in value systems or beliefs.
seb
