PAB - what it is - what it can do

[Jac]

Could you please point to where this is minuted in the PAB reports?

It wasn't 'minuted' per se because there was no PAB Resolution or advice offered to the Board although there were an awful lot of nodding heads around the PAB table. So to paraphrase what me learned friend once wrote to me; 'neither agreeing or disagreeing with much of what you say' I will simply say that the PAB, at that time, took the course it felt best for the community. Conspiracy theories may seem like suitable political ploys in discussions like this, but there was no conspiracy to defraud the community (not even Acorn Domains) out of a policy dicussion, though spookily enough, we're having it now (and you know Nominet reads these threads).

Yes, the Board is responsible for operational matters. I do not agree with you that the decision to set up a Foundation (into which it seems £5 million per annum will be paid) is an operational matter - I think is is pretty obviously about as big a policy change as one has seen for a while from Nominet.

If,as you state above, the current PAB agreed that the shortest possible consultation period conducted in the run up to Christmas then I would not vote for anyone who supported that decision.

Beasty, my main man, you sometimes bewilder the heck out of me. Everything I have said on this forum is as factual as I can be (given my age and zimmer frame) and I already pointed out that the Membership gave Nominet the thumbs up on the creation of a Foundation.

I accept you would not vote for anyone who supported that decision, except, you'd not be voting for the majority of the Membership of which I am only one. Co-incidentally, I remember at a particular Member debate about Governance that most Members in the room expressed favour for the Nominet Foundation. Some didn't, but they didn't speak up and preferred to mutter their disgruntlement to the person next to them; a member sat in front of me did this continually.

And by the by, I am sure you will recall the meeting I mention above, you were sat next to me.

So, it's a tad ironic to say that Nominet did not consult, when they were consulting as far back as that meeting.

Best wishes
James

 

[Beasty]

It wasn't 'minuted' per se because there was no PAB Resolution or advice offered to the Board although there were an awful lot of nodding heads around the PAB table. So to paraphrase what me learned friend once wrote to me; 'neither agreeing or disagreeing with much of what you say' I will simply say that the PAB, at that time, took the course it felt best for the community. Conspiracy theories may seem like suitable political ploys in discussions like this, but there was no conspiracy to defraud the community (not even Acorn Domains) out of a policy dicussion, though spookily enough, we're having it now (and you know Nominet reads these threads).

Things are either minuted and on the agenda or they are not - there is no per se about it. That James is my point - and I think more importantly also the point of some of the candidates. They want things to stop being mentioned in private and want a change in direction - where the PAB gives advice and records that advice to be seen by the world at large. The only person mentioning conspiracy theories is you.

Beasty, my main man, you sometimes bewilder the heck out of me. Everything I have said on this forum is as factual as I can be (given my age and zimmer frame) and I already pointed out that the Membership gave Nominet the thumbs up on the creation of a Foundation.

I accept you would not vote for anyone who supported that decision, except, you'd not be voting for the majority of the Membership of which I am only one. Co-incidentally, I remember at a particular Member debate about Governance that most Members in the room expressed favour for the Nominet Foundation. Some didn't, but they didn't speak up and preferred to mutter their disgruntlement to the person next to them; a member sat in front of me did this continually.

And by the by, I am sure you will recall the meeting I mention above, you were sat next to me.

So, it's a tad ironic to say that Nominet did not consult, when they were consulting as far back as that meeting.

When exactly did the membership give Nominet the thumbs up for the Foundation? It was discussed (informally) as part of the governance discussion after the formal AGM last year. I have no recollection of there being a motion or a vote. The governance changes that were discussed at that meeting were given long consultations and will, if they are to be passed, need a resolution and a membership vote.

The last time the members voted on anything, it was the last board election. I have quickly skimmed the Candidates Statements - if I have missed something, I am sure someone will say so!

Dickie Armour and Peter Gradwell supported the Foundation in their election statements - neither of them were elected.

Michael Toth and Jonathan Robinson do not mention the Foundation and neither of them was elected.

Angus Hanton wanted "revenue neutrality" and to tackle the surplus "in ways that will benefit all members and registrants". He does not mention setting up a Foundation. He was elected.

Seb Lahtinen talks about "fair pricing" and "efficiency savings" and does not mention setting up a Foundation. He was elected.

Kindly enlighten me how this gives the thumbs up to a Foundation. Of course there were other issues on the various statements, but on this pretty big one - to my simple way of looking at things - the guys who wanted it did not get in and the guys who wanted to look at the problem as a whole and favoured other solutions did get in.

 

[Jac]

Things are either minuted and on the agenda or they are not - there is no per se about it. That James is my point - and I think more importantly also the point of some of the candidates. They want things to stop being mentioned in private and want a change in direction - where the PAB gives advice and records that advice to be seen by the world at large. The only person mentioning conspiracy theories is you.

Pab Meeting Reports are not minutes. This is another misconception of PAB reports. They are a general and factual report of what was discussed and there is no intention to keep anything from anyone. The reports simply cover the main discussions that took place, the advice that may have been offered to Nominet, and PAB resolutions that may have been put forward.

The issue of whether PAB meetings should be minuted verbatim is a debate I personally believe can best be had by the new PAB at their first meeting in May. Even if I am not re-elected I will gladly help or advise one of the new or existing members, to write a paper/proposal on it.

But I am compelled to say this: everybody wants to change everything until they have to be responsible for something. You can't be a responsible member of anything unless you are prepared to look at all other viewpoints too whether you passionately disagree with them or not.

When exactly did the membership give Nominet the thumbs up for the Foundation?

Over the period of the last year (probably 18 months). I am told, and would have expected, that Nominet consulted with its members on a personal basis too from the larger registrars down. Whilst I happen to know some members and registrars expressed their own concerns, I believe the majority were in favour of pushing ahead with the Foundation.

As an aside, it is my understanding of company law (happy for you to correct me if I am wrong) that the Board of a company has ultimate responsibility for how its funds or profits are redistributed, whether that be as dividends or as charitable enterprises.

As I said at the start of this debate, it is not my place to defend Nominet, but it seems highly unlikely they have done anything wrong or inappropriate in terms of company law. There are enough lawyers giving advice up there to create their own lawyer jokes!

It was discussed (informally) as part of the governance discussion after the formal AGM last year.

That is all part of the consultation process. All consultation is important whether informal or formal, from Nominet's public events to its registrar and members events, which I know you went to one or other of last year.

Nominet also holds monthly Member lunches where small groups of members get to consult directly with The Board and one or other PAB member. It's all important consultation and brings forth some valid suggestions and criticisms from Nominet members.

The last time the members voted on anything, it was the last board election. I have quickly skimmed the Candidates Statements - if I have missed something, I am sure someone will say so!

Board elections are conducted under weighted voting, they are not OMOV as in PAB elections. Weighted voting means that those who have done the most in terms of canvassing a voting share big enough to get them elected, will win. That's what happened. It doesn't mean any of the other candidates would not have made worthy non-executives, it just means that the weighted voting elected the candidates those who held the most votes wanted elected.

So whether a particular candidate stood for or against the Foundation would not have mattered in terms of the voting power they could muster to get elected. Whether we like it or not (some do, some don't) it's the amount of votes you can canvas that matters in board elections.

Regards
James

 

[sneezycheese]

Pab Meeting Reports are not minutes. This is another misconception of PAB reports. They are a general and factual report of what was discussed and there is no intention to keep anything from anyone. The reports simply cover the main discussions that took place,the advice that may have been offered to Nominet, and PAB resolutions that may have been put forward.

...Bang - as he shoots himself in the foot!

So are they factual? - If so, one would assume that if the issue of the Foundation was discussed it would have been included in the report! :???:

Maybe you would like to shed light on where in any of the PAB Agenda's for the meetings you mention the matter of the foundation was raised.

All we have is 'hear say' at the moment - please can you provide formal clarification.

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[Beasty]

Pab Meeting Reports are not minutes. This is another misconception of PAB reports. They are a general and factual report of what was discussed and there is no intention to keep anything from anyone. The reports simply cover the main discussions that took place, the advice that may have been offered to Nominet, and PAB resolutions that may have been put forward.

The issue of whether PAB meetings should be minuted verbatim is a debate I personally believe can best be had by the new PAB at their first meeting in May. Even if I am not re-elected I will gladly help or advise one of the new or existing members, to write a paper/proposal on it.

But I am compelled to say this: everybody wants to change everything until they have to be responsible for something. You can't be a responsible member of anything unless you are prepared to look at all other viewpoints too whether you passionately disagree with them or not.



Over the period of the last year (probably 18 months). I am told, and would have expected, that Nominet consulted with its members on a personal basis too from the larger registrars down. Whilst I happen to know some members and registrars expressed their own concerns, I believe the majority were in favour of pushing ahead with the Foundation.

As an aside, it is my understanding of company law (happy for you to correct me if I am wrong) that the Board of a company has ultimate responsibility for how its funds or profits are redistributed, whether that be as dividends or as charitable enterprises.

As I said at the start of this debate, it is not my place to defend Nominet, but it seems highly unlikely they have done anything wrong or inappropriate in terms of company law. There are enough lawyers giving advice up there to create their own lawyer jokes!



That is all part of the consultation process. All consultation is important whether informal or formal, from Nominet's public events to its registrar and members events, which I know you went to one or other of last year.

Nominet also holds monthly Member lunches where small groups of members get to consult directly with The Board and one or other PAB member. It's all important consultation and brings forth some valid suggestions and criticisms from Nominet members.



Board elections are conducted under weighted voting, they are not OMOV as in PAB elections. Weighted voting means that those who have done the most in terms of canvassing a voting share big enough to get them elected, will win. That's what happened. It doesn't mean any of the other candidates would not have made worthy non-executives, it just means that the weighted voting elected the candidates those who held the most votes wanted elected.

So whether a particular candidate stood for or against the Foundation would not have mattered in terms of the voting power they could muster to get elected. Whether we like it or not (some do, some don't) it's the amount of votes you can canvas that matters in board elections.

Regards
James

I give no truck to "people told us they supported it" arguments - past experience suggests that such support is often ephemeral. Conduct quantifiable votes or consultations that show who said what. We can all hear what we want to hear if things can not be measured.

Nominet is a company limited by guarantee and is a "not-for-profit" company. It is also the monopoly supplier of .uk domains. It is therefore not a "normal" company. The Board can do what company law and the memorandum and articles allow; and the Board is also answerable to the members.

Weighted voting would also apply to any motion proposed to bring in a foundation - so your distinction about the weighted voting for the last board election is specious.

In any event, you and others will soon be throwing yourselves at the mercy of the OMOV PAB election, when different views on this (and other things) will be weighed up and voted on.

I think we should leave it there - since I doubt we will agree and I seriously doubt anyone else really cares whether we do or not!

 

[Jac]

I give no truck to "people told us they supported it" arguments - past experience suggests that such support is often ephemeral.

I suspect ephemeral is the wrong choice of word in the context of your statement above. However, to put the comments I have made in perspective, there are currently 5,440 members of Acorn Domains, there are around 2,890 active Nominet members with 4,031 TAGs between them, and there are 6,569,811 domain names. None of this proves anything but what is shows is how many ordinary stakeholders there are out there who need to be considered in all these arguments and their interests are hardly ephemeral.

Conduct quantifiable votes or consultations that show who said what. We can all hear what we want to hear if things can not be measured.

Everytime anyone purports to speak for anyone else they will always be challenged to prove it but there is something inherently flawed in the idea that one can criticise someone else's arguments for having no substance, yet not allow for the reverse to be true; i.e. that their counter argument is just as ephemeral.

However, here's a fact...

The one unalienable fact in all of this is that it is the Membership who take these things forward. If you are right and they do not support the Foundation, I suspect we'll hear their objections at the AGM which is only a short time away, in April. If I am wrong, I will be happy to come back onto Acorn Domains and eat humble pie. I trust the reverse will be true too?

In any event, you and others will soon be throwing yourselves at the mercy of the OMOV PAB election, when different views on this (and other things) will be weighed up and voted on.

I think we should leave it there - since I doubt we will agree and I seriously doubt anyone else really cares whether we do or not!

Well, as this rather public debate has been between you and me I think it's safe to say we both care, but it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with each other, it's actually a lot bigger than that, which is what I've tried to show with the figures above.

So even if I am not re-elected I will still be as proactive as you have been from your own standpoint because I'm a community caring kinda guy.

Best wishes
James

 

[landlord]

Money in

I personally wouldn't grumble over money going to good causes...however I would like to know whether Nominet can pull this money back if they were in financial difficulties?

Lee

 

[retired_member12]

...there are 6,569,811 domain names. None of this proves anything but what is shows is how many ordinary stakeholders there are out there who need to be considered in all these arguments...

So, once everything is taken into account, that's 6.569 million registrants who each pay at least 76p more than they need for every single .uk domain name, every year. How much do Nominet currently charge its members for registration, about £2.00?

That would mean that instead of say 10 domains costing £20 per annum, i could effectively register another 6 domains for free with the same amount of money. Shame i haven't got any choice in the matter though!

 

[Whois-Search]

......there are 6,569,811 domain names. None of this proves anything but what is shows is how many ordinary stakeholders there are out there who need to be considered in all these arguments

Then why doesn't Nominet ask them James?

They do it with the Registrant satisfaction survey so why not the Foundation?
http://www.nic.uk/news/latest/?contentId=4809

Also 1.2 million of those names I now look after at work - how does Pipex get a say in how the money is spent? What if they wanted £2.5 million to give to charity or to setup their own foundation? Who spends money on promoting and managing .uk and makes nothing on them? Why is the money not spent on making the registry systems stable? Why did the December renewals go wrong? Why is there not FREE online transfers? Why is there one DAC to share between 4 brands? Why is Nominet XML not EPP?

What do they actually get out of all of this?........capped voting rights? Oh yeah and by the next AGM the mem & arts changed so the members lose control forever:

Board = 3 appointed + 3 elected + 3 employed

 

[Beasty]

I suspect ephemeral is the wrong choice of word in the context of your statement above. However, to put the comments I have made in perspective, there are currently 5,440 members of Acorn Domains, there are around 2,890 active Nominet members with 4,031 TAGs between them, and there are 6,569,811 domain names. None of this proves anything but what is shows is how many ordinary stakeholders there are out there who need to be considered in all these arguments and their interests are hardly ephemeral.



Everytime anyone purports to speak for anyone else they will always be challenged to prove it but there is something inherently flawed in the idea that one can criticise someone else's arguments for having no substance, yet not allow for the reverse to be true; i.e. that their counter argument is just as ephemeral.

However, here's a fact...

The one unalienable fact in all of this is that it is the Membership who take these things forward. If you are right and they do not support the Foundation, I suspect we'll hear their objections at the AGM which is only a short time away, in April. If I am wrong, I will be happy to come back onto Acorn Domains and eat humble pie. I trust the reverse will be true too?



Well, as this rather public debate has been between you and me I think it's safe to say we both care, but it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with each other, it's actually a lot bigger than that, which is what I've tried to show with the figures above.

So even if I am not re-elected I will still be as proactive as you have been from your own standpoint because I'm a community caring kinda guy.

Best wishes
James

I am afraid you are again missing the point - all be it in a round about way. No one was saying the rights of 6 million registrants are ephemeral - I was saying that people saying they "spoke for the masses" without evidence or quantifiable sanction are on thin ice.

Conversely, I took you to the last set of voting figures that involved the membership as a whole and showed that there was the opposite of the ringing endorsement you claimed on this issue. Those are facts, not supposition.

The 6 registrants million might - just might - prefer to get their surplus back. Have you considered that? Have they been asked that? Have they (really) been asked anything? I do not know for sure what they think - and neither do you.

Here's a fact - if the Foundation was still a proposal and was up for a membership vote - with all valid options on the table - then you would have a point about the AGM. However that option has been denied to the membership - with either the tacit or express (but unrecorded) approval of the PAB. Instead, you seem to think we should be guided by grumbling and mumbling - but only if there is "enough" of it.

Please explain to me what was said in the "smoke filled rooms" that made it so clear that it was necessary to go from doing nothing with the surplus for many years, to setting up a Foundation to spend it, in the minimum possible amount of time and with a minimal amount of formal member (far less registrant) input? What could not wait for a vote at the AGM - and in the mean time be canvassed with a thorough consultation, which considered all of the options? What am I missing here?!

 

[Beasty]

I personally wouldn't grumble over money going to good causes...however I would like to know whether Nominet can pull this money back if they were in financial difficulties?

Lee

Nominet should never get into financial difficulties - it is the only place you can get a very popular product! But no - once the money has gone, it has gone.

I am not grumbling about money going to good causes - it may well be the right thing to do.

I am critcising the way it was done and whether it would be the majority preferred choice on how to spend the money (we do not know) - as well as querying whether another charity is really needed or is it just a waste of part of the surplus and if the money is to be given to good causes why not instead just let the people whose money it was decide who to give it to and then give it away.

I am also questioning the part the PAB (as a whole, not just James) played in the process - it seems to me they had little or nothing to do with it and I think that is a failure on their part.

 

[Whois-Search]

I am also questioning the part the PAB (as a whole, not just James) played in the process - it seems to me they had little or nothing to do with it and I think that is a failure on their part.

It was never put formally to the PAB as an agenda item.

The PAB chair and Nominet decide the PAB work programme.

Therefore all you can do is bring it up under AOB which some of us did:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/27382_PAB_54_Meeting_Report.pdf

 

[Beasty]

It was never put formally to the PAB as an agenda item.

The PAB chair and Nominet decide the PAB work programme.

Therefore all you can do is bring it up under AOB which some of us did:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/27382_PAB_54_Meeting_Report.pdf

The PAB can and should set its own agenda. You are meant to be there to distill the views of the members/stakeholders and give advice on key policy issues to Nominet. If your agenda is being dictated by Nominet, there is problem number one - take back control of your own agenda.

Well done for bringing it up and for making sure it was reported - but that really is not the long term answer in my view.

 

[sneezycheese]

The PAB can and should set its own agenda. You are meant to be there to distill the views of the members/stakeholders and give advice on key policy issues to Nominet. If your agenda is being dictated by Nominet, there is problem number one - take back control of your own agenda.

...Agreed 100% - If this is not happening at the moment then serious questions need to be asked as to why this has been allowed to happen and proposals need to be urgently put forward in how to fix it!

I would like to know if it has always been this way in the PAB, or is it something that has 'developed' over time?

Either way the PAB needs a way to grab the bull by the horns - not to argue, but to actually give good solid and concise advice, run their own agenda, be open and transparent, keep accurate records of meetings etc and to drive the way forward and make things happen!

Is the fact that PAB members are not paid (and therefore providing their time for free) an issue here? - It is worth noting that it would seem that they are the only part of Nominet who don't get paid - why is this?

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[landlord]

In summary

In summary Beasty this situation re the foundation is a prime EXAMPLE where Nominet do not listen to the registrants (the stakeholders who fund them) and therefore is likely to happen on other importnant issues, so to probe as you are doing is very important.

Lee

 

[Jac]

Cost versus worth.

So, once everything is taken into account, that's 6.569 million registrants who each pay at least 76p more than they need for every single .uk domain name, every year. How much do Nominet currently charge its members for registration, about £2.00?

The current 'cost' to members (registrars) is £5.00 plus Vat which equates to £2.50 plus Vat per year. It's up to the different business models to decide what to charge at 'retail level', just as any retail store would.

That would mean that instead of say 10 domains costing £20 per annum, i could effectively register another 6 domains for free with the same amount of money. Shame i haven't got any choice in the matter though!

A few year's ago there were registrars offering 'free' domain names, which often cost their customers more in sundry fees. There are still registrars offering low cost domain names but they don't do it to make nothing, nobody does, not even you. Businesses have to survive and loss-leaders are a good marketing tactic. However, some of the same low cost registrars have recently increased their hosting and dedicated server prices, some prices have doubled and tripled.

Nobody who isn't involved in the infrastructure that keeps all those 'free' domain names alive would know or even care that costs keep rising in the background yet Internet companies (ISPs, Registrars, Registries) are expected to continue with freebies and low cost services. Telehouse London and Redbus have apparently increased their prices for rack space (allegedly doubling and tripling prices in some instances), and some low costs hosts have apparently moved out into lower cost data centres, and who can blame them.

However, as the other data centres are not necessarily of the same calibre as Telehouse or Redbus, that may well mean a lowering in standards of hosting and ded servers from low cost hosting companies. It might not, but the reported outtages at those lower cost data centres are more significant than at Telehouse or Redbus.

Everything has a price. Cheap is usually what it says it is, and free is worth what you pay for it. There are costs beyond the monetary value of a thing. In my opinion, the longevity of a thing is more important in commercial terms.

Just my tuppence worth on cost versus worth.

Regards
James

 

[Jac]

Can we please be factual.

It was never put formally to the PAB as an agenda item.

The PAB chair and Nominet decide the PAB work programme.

Therefore all you can do is bring it up under AOB which some of us did:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/27382_PAB_54_Meeting_Report.pdf

Andrew

Sorry, but you are not being factual in what you write about the PAB Chair and Nominet deciding the work programme.

Nominet sent out it's usual request (to the nom-pab list) for ideas and additions to the work programme for 2008. Apparently I was the only one who answered. You were at liberty to present ideas for inclusion just as every other PAB member was. So it is incorrect to suggest it is the Chair and Nominet who decide the work programme. It is the Chair and Nominet who arrange the timing of the programme but that's an administration thing, not an attempt to exclude anyone or anything.

I know you have made significant contributions to the PAB and the recent sub-committee, and the sub-committee chair was impressed by the thought you had put into your comments, so I'm not having a go, I'm just asking you to be factual in your statements. Otherwise the PAB and Nominet get slagged off for the wrong reasons and that just adds fuel to the wrong flames.

In my humble opinion of course... :-D

Best wishes
James

 

[retired_member12]

The current 'cost' to members (registrars) is £5.00 plus Vat which equates to £2.50 plus Vat per year. It's up to the different business models to decide what to charge at 'retail level', just as any retail store would.



A few year's ago there were registrars offering 'free' domain names, which often cost their customers more in sundry fees. There are still registrars offering low cost domain names but they don't do it to make nothing, nobody does, not even you. Businesses have to survive and loss-leaders are a good marketing tactic. However, some of the same low cost registrars have recently increased their hosting and dedicated server prices, some prices have doubled and tripled.

Nobody who isn't involved in the infrastructure that keeps all those 'free' domain names alive would know or even care that costs keep rising in the background yet Internet companies (ISPs, Registrars, Registries) are expected to continue with freebies and low cost services. Telehouse London and Redbus have apparently increased their prices for rack space (allegedly doubling and tripling prices in some instances), and some low costs hosts have apparently moved out into lower cost data centres, and who can blame them.

However, as the other data centres are not necessarily of the same calibre as Telehouse or Redbus, that may well mean a lowering in standards of hosting and ded servers from low cost hosting companies. It might not, but the reported outtages at those lower cost data centres are more significant than at Telehouse or Redbus.

Everything has a price. Cheap is usually what it says it is, and free is worth what you pay for it. There are costs beyond the monetary value of a thing. In my opinion, the longevity of a thing is more important in commercial terms.

Just my tuppence worth on cost versus worth.

Regards
James

I stand corrected regarding the Nominet cost James. Your post went off on a tangent there, so I’ll bring it back to the point i am trying to make, which is that irrespective of the irrelevant mark-ups and/or loss leaders introduced by those you mention, the one certain cost is the £2.50 charged by Nominet. The fact of the matter is this; Nominet could reduce the registration cost to £1.74/annum. Instead, it is charging a whopping 43% more than it should for every single domain name. I don’t know how you can feel comfortable about this James. In any other business model, overcharging over 6.5 million people by 43% for what is to them a ‘public’ service is not good reading to my mind!

 

[Jac]

...Agreed 100% - If this is not happening at the moment then serious questions need to be asked as to why this has been allowed to happen and proposals need to be urgently put forward in how to fix it!

You will note that Beasty said "If" and I'm pleased to see you have been fair enough to say "If" too. I have repeatedly said there is a lot of misunderstanding about the purpose and role and powers of the PAB. The issue of who controls the PAB or its agenda is as much the PAB's fault as it is anyone else's, so let's not get sidetracked with feigned indignance or insults, let's ensure the PAB of the future actually sticks to its mandate and contributes to its own work programme (see my reply to Andrew about who decides the work programme).

Is the fact that PAB members are not paid (and therefore providing their time for free) an issue here? - It is worth noting that it would seem that they are the only part of Nominet who don't get paid - why is this?

The rationale seems to be, if the PAB was paid, you'd get the wrong people standing for the wrong reasons. I can see how that might be the case, except, as it is OMOV and the membership decides, I don't think a little financial remuneration for time spent on behalf of the community would be that wrong. However, there is also the issue that many PAB member are already in employed positions and that complicates the issue of just simply paying PAB members; i.e. who would you pay in these circumstances, the employer or the PAB member (bearing in mind they are elected as individuals, not as member or company employees). Then there's the appointed members some of whom are civil servants etc etc.

Nothing's ever as simple as just saying so.

Regards
James

 

[Whois-Search]

Andrew

Sorry, but you are not being factual in what you write about the PAB Chair and Nominet deciding the work programme.

Nominet sent out it's usual request (to the nom-pab list) for ideas and additions to the work programme for 2008. Apparently I was the only one who answered. You were at liberty to present ideas for inclusion just as every other PAB member was. So it is incorrect to suggest it is the Chair and Nominet who decide the work programme. It is the Chair and Nominet who arrange the timing of the programme but that's an administration thing, not an attempt to exclude anyone or anything.

I know you have made significant contributions to the PAB and the recent sub-committee, and the sub-committee chair was impressed by the thought you had put into your comments, so I'm not having a go, I'm just asking you to be factual in your statements. Otherwise the PAB and Nominet get slagged off for the wrong reasons and that just adds fuel to the wrong flames.

In my humble opinion of course... :-D

Best wishes
James

Sorry James that is also factually incorrect....

I still have my email here which I sent to Nominet and Eric Ramage with 11 issues in it for the work programme. I also have a reply from Nominet where 5 were accepted and 6 were turned down with valid and fair enough reasons. This email was even sent to the SMT.

Also....

Not sure why your having extra conversations about my professionalism... However I did indeed write 3 pages of A4 for the sub-committee meeting - of which only three other elected members attended - not one single appointed member turned up.

I just hope my input is reflected in the meeting report and is respected when it goes to the next PAB meeting N.B. the meeting was chaired by an elected Nominet non-executive and Nominet's Policy Director took the notes at the meeting.

Both lack of attendance and lack of independence of the PAB is something I'm extremely concerned about at the moment.

In my personal opinion made under clause 2.7 http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/16862_code_of_conduct.pdf