Comments

The board has to be representative of not only members but the country and world, nominations of any board should be equal to the invested interest by that party. Members should all be treated in the same way, although granted we all have different vested interests in the name space. I firmly believe any future board should be voted on the basis of one member one vote and not by any collaboration of other interests in other words not dependent on how many domains are under a members control or oversight, any one members views should be as important as another, therefore one member one vote is fair, any other way and it risks destabilising the very heart of Nominet, the board and control of the namespace and in my view a greater risk of government intervention which is why we are here today answering these questions. I believe in a board supported by one member one vote, I trust a board run that way rather than a government led quango, I only have to open the newspapers and see how certain members of the Upper House do things in their own favour to realise any one member of parliament calling the shots in favour of misinformed business is not a risk we should allow to occur. Any board should be transparant and accountable, the only way that is possible is by having one member one vote, nothing weighted, not taking account of registrations as this risks the neutrality of the PAB and therefore the trust of Nominet. I however support the above with this all in mind.


Are these not standard requirements for a UK company - why are you quoting them here?


Too vague  "balanced", "equitably", "fairly", "transparent"


NO this will not work


When Nominet was founded, very few people would have predicted the growth of the DNS or the importance to the UK economy of a stable national registry. Up dating and up grading Nominet's governance in accordance with best practice and the recommendations of the experts Nominet has conulted is sensible and necessary. Nominet must be put above capture.


We believe that using the term 'well-balanced' indicates a similar commitment to that given on pricing below i.e. that no interest group or stakeholder will be favoured over any other(s) by the Board, and that this commitment must be fully reflected in the manner of appointment and composition of the Board.


"We will treat all members equitably and fairly" says it all!  Registrars can quickly get domains administered and issues resolved - I have always be highly pleased with the service.


I think the current setup is fair and just for all members and all parties have a equal say in Nominet. This should remain unchanged and benefit all the members not just the select few major players such as 1and1,123reg etc 


Whilst I disagree with the practical changes proposed which reduce the membership's control over the board I recognise that the principle is one that in general must be adopted before the Government would consider allowing self-regulation to continue.


I note the differentiation between "equitably" and "equally".


There should be full accountability for appointed non-executive directors and their appointments should be ratified by the membership at AGMs


Does "well-balanced" mean the board is made up of people who have real industry understanding of how the domain industry impacts UK business? That is more important that if "well balanced" means a board composed mainly of civil servant and ex-public employees who have little understanding of the internet.


We agree that contemporising the structure of the board is essential in order to meet with standards of corporate governance which, again, are quite different now than at the time of Nominet's inception.  It is a necessary reaction to the current composition, size and varying interests of the membership.

These should be self-evident.


We need to once again focus on the country as a whole, holding london AGM's etc is not practical as I suspect the majority of members are not based in London. AGM's should be held in an area/region where it is easier for members to get to. Most members in this economic climate will be more focused on running their business and taking a couple of days out to attend a nominet AGM in london is not practical or sound business sense.


I'm not sure you've managed "well-balanced", but as a set of targets to strive for rather than any reflection of current practice, I think they're laudable.


While I fully agree that a strong, effective and well-balanced board is necessary, I hope the number of board members can be kept as low as possible in order to be both effective and efficient, while still being balanced. Also who can hold the Board/the management accountable? The new organisation-model needs clarification on this point, as a Board or management that is "accountable to all Stakeholders" is - in reality - not accountable at all. This is even more important as Nominet is a NPO.


I believe Nominet have always done this and will continued to do this.