This post has been deleted by a moderator
Posted Monday 10th November 2008 15:52 GMT
"I call upon you and the CEO to either resign; or to be put forward under a Companies Act s168 motion to remove you – so that the membership can review your records and decide whether they want to retain you. If the members decided to keep you and the CEO in situ, I would find it impossible to remain on the Board and would resign at that time."
Seconded, Jim.
Posted Monday 10th November 2008 16:37 GMT
As someone who has tried to get the unaccountable accountable in a number of public and charitable bodies. I ask that Mr Davies does not threaten to resign. This hands the 'bad guys' a full victory, where as staying allows you to fight another day.
That the board believe that a director is there to protect the interests of 'the company' and not its shareholders shows the depth of corruption of thought in the Nominet board.
Stick it to them!
Posted Monday 10th November 2008 18:24 GMT
As a Nominet member, I would certainly agree that the Chairman and CEO should place their tenure at the decision of the membership. If they don't, it's highly likely that the UK Govt will take a much higher interest in the workings of Nominet.
Posted Monday 10th November 2008 23:41 GMT
This 'article' seems like it came straight from Jim Davies. Nominet members will have been able to see plenty of discussion about this on the Steering group mailing list. And, Jim apparently hasn't signed his non-executive director's contract yet.
See http://www.notnominet.org.uk/questions.htm for an alternative view!
Posted Monday 10th November 2008 23:41 GMT
He's actively working against a company he's on the board of in court. That's called "sabotage"
His board membership should be terminated and quite possibly other legal proceedings considered.
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 11:04 GMT
That's a joke. A little off-topic, but I just wanted to get a quick jab in. I have seen Nominet go from a largely silent, administrative and mediatory body to something more akin to the Domain Name Registry of America scam. Scary pro forma emails to the tune of £90 for domain names that I surrendered and detagged almost 2 years previous. And then there's the disinformation and charges concerning registrar changes.
I've called to ask why they're so behind the moment and why they're sending me such interfering bullshit, and I always get the answer 'recouping costs'. Why would they need to recoup costs if they have such a reported financial surplus (profit)? Why the shift from cog to lever in the first place?
Nominet need to decide upon a singular role within the industry; either involve the Gov't and become a bona fide executive agency or become a registrar. I really don't see how they can be both without inherent conflict of interests. Reading some of their 'white papers' also shows a distinct blurring of their role.
I imagine there's a few more skeletons in the closet than our Jim's aware of.
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 11:04 GMT
"He's actively working against a company he's on the board of in court. That's called "sabotage"
His board membership should be terminated and quite possibly other legal proceedings considered." ... By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 10th November 2008 22:01 GMT
It is not sabotage but rescue whenever the company board has an imposter/mole on the payroll, AC
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 11:04 GMT
He's not going to resign unless the membership get a say and say they disagree with him, Peter, so don't worry on that account
How does attempting to get rid of CEs who aren't (in his opinion) working in the interests of the shareholders count as sabotage?
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 11:11 GMT
It acts as:
- industry regulator
- registry
- registrar
These functions are inherently conflicted and the company should be broken up accordingly.
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 16:15 GMT
Jim for sure I will vote with you on a resolution to get rid of Dilbert and Co. I think
myself that they are acting for BERR and have become busom buddies of
Mandelson's department so they can seek to get the Government involved.
What other PRIVATE company allows itself to be dictated to by the Government,
who are effectively seeking to be shadow directors through the back door.
I say call a vote of members and get rid of them both and soon as possible.
Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 18:31 GMT
"If the members decided to keep you and the CEO in situ, I would find it impossible to remain on the Board and would resign at that time."
We're best rid of Jim - he's been pushing to have .uk domains be reduced in cost not because Nominet make too much money but because it's in the best interests of HIS clients - the people that cybersquat and take up all the good domains so nobody else can get them!
He's also made efforts to get the domain dispute service cancelled as well, again because it suits HIM and HIS clients - Jim Davies does not have the best interests of Nominet OR the UK internet at heart - he's working on behalf of his own customers and doesn't give a damn about what is right for Nominet!
Posted Wednesday 12th November 2008 14:06 GMT
Oh how I like to see Dilbert and Cowley getting people to post on here in support of themselves
and knocking Jim Davies. Jim Davies was voted on to the Board of Nominet by a large
majority and Dilbert and Cowley were never voted in. I would like to see both of them
gone. As for the DRS, the system is totally flawed in that it allows people to use trademark
law to make a complaint but does not allow a response to use trademark laws.
Posted Wednesday 12th November 2008 19:51 GMT
And me (and a number of other 'registrars').
Nominet make a fair chunk from every registrar out there and yes, they should be cheaper.
I for one, voted that Jim be elected and if it came to a vote, I would vote towards removing Cowley from office.
Nominet needs a good shake (and stir).
Posted Thursday 13th November 2008 11:26 GMT
"By Kia Foster Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 14:33 GMT
Jim for sure I will vote with you on a resolution to get rid of Dilbert and Co. I think myself that they are acting for BERR and have become busom buddies of Mandelson's department so they can seek to get the Government involved."
Interesting point, are they not already working with BERR via www.ukigf.org.uk ?
_____
Um...
"By Anonymous Coward Posted Monday 10th November 2008 22:01 GMT
He's actively working against a company he's on the board of in court. That's called "sabotage"
His board membership should be terminated and quite possibly other legal proceedings considered."
Surely that is a Court matter anyway, and subject to the usual degree of non-disclosure. How on earth have Nominet managed to find out about that?
_____
"Resignation - best thing for him!
By Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 11th November 2008 17:32 GMT
..We're best rid of Jim - he's been pushing to have .uk domains be reduced in cost not because Nominet make too much money but because it's in the best interests of HIS clients - the people that cybersquat and take up all the good domains so nobody else can get them!"
Ultimately, a cost reduction benefits every single registrant, not his supposed clients. I cannot see your reasoning there. As for cybersquatting, this is a result of the current system, administered by Nominet, not Jim Davies.
Posted Thursday 13th November 2008 14:11 GMT
I will support a vote to remove Dilbert and Cowley.
Nominet are a monopoly, answerable to nobody. Accountable only to themselves. It should be controlled by the goverment, or broken up to introduce fair competition. I've have seen at first hand the way Nominet works, and it stinks.
They want non-execs who toe the line (yes men). They tried there best to stop Jim getting elected, in a supposdly 'free' election. They sent out letters and phoned all members, effectively saying dont vote for Jim. This was not right.
Another non executive has resigned yesterday, openly critising Dilbert and Cowley.
Jim dont resign, carry on, fair play will win in the end.
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly mobile & wireless newsletter - click here
Back to the article
