In Gordon’s interview, he really struggled to defend his position, being draw into repairing divisions, with what seemed a lack confidence. At this stage I am unconvinced with him

Fay

Is a repentant board member, a credible board member? Fay has all the hallmarks that appear to make her a credible candidate, I just don’t trust her.

Lord Erroll

This man is an intelligent Gentleman with political knowledge, contacts and possible influence. The thing is he is already on the PAB and feels that to suggest or influence change, he needs a seat on the board. Then there is the issue of attendance. Am I glad he cleared up the issues of attendance?

Peter Gradwell

A done deal? I hope not, Peter I have the most concern with. If he gets in, Nominet’ constitution be could move back 5-6 or even 7 years.

Andrew Bennett and Angus Hanton

Angus has a point; Nominet is awash with funds and a very tempting prospect for corporates. Andrew also has a point in defending his stakeholders. One issue candidates?

Who to vote for

Lord Erroll and Gordan

Regards

Andrew (not Bennett)

And just to inspire you to vote, I’ve stuck the first one on for Andrew Bennett (actually, because the code is quite good it works off your IP so I can’t vote more than once and even it up - well, not without going into the code itself).

So, make your choice known…

Kieren

An interesting argument you propose. On one hand you seem to suggest that domaining is a business model, perhaps in some small way legitimising it. On the other, when stating “Kill parasitic domain hoarding”, you appear to suggest implementing a form of neo-Nazi purification.

Many years ago, one of my businesses could not register a domain because of speculators. So yes, I can see the argument that domains registering some 10 years ago, in the purest vision, were intended for “business” usage. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with the practice of registering domains in a speculative manner, one has to acknowledge the seemingly substantial presence of that stakeholder group.

As nominet members /stakeholders we could continue to fight over the scrapes that are left over in the established registry of names or fight to create new fields of activity, while refining existing processes. Let Lesley et al have greater freedom to decide, rather than chain them to an archaic, undemocratic system.

Andrew

All the Board candidates have views on the DRS - if they didn’t discuss them in the interviews it was because there wasn’t time, but many have covered it in their statements.

But this is the thing - go to the AGM and/or email the candidates and make your views known. That’s exactly what Board members are there for.

Kieren

The fact that recent DRS cases have seemed to be biased towards the complainant is simply a reflection of the way that the domain-touts have taken over the system and many more domains are now in their hands.

I’m not particularly surprised about domain touts standing for board election but astonished that I don’t really hear anything from any of the other candidates about how they intend to curb the practice and restore stability and credibility to the .uk namespace.

Increasing UK domain names to £25 pounds for two years and using the funds to subsidise DRS cases so that only the looser pays their costs would be a start in restoring domains to individual registrant businesses. Or perhaps a sliding scale of fees per registrant to stop hoarding - £5ea for the first 5 domains, £50ea for the next 20, £200ea for 26+ domains with the same contact details. This shouldn’t present a problem for small registrants of 1-2 domains, nor large registrants with lots of IP rights for whom the costs would be proportionate but it would kill parasitic domain hoarding!