Shane
Top Contributor
I'd have to disagree Erhan.I get the sense that the whole election discussion is not solely about the best interests of domainers, but rather an opportunity to punish existing Directors for accepting the recommendations of the Names Policy Panel. If that is the motivation I can understand it, but it is best to call a spade a spade.
I don't think it's about punishing people at all. It's simply a case that many DNtrade members have a vote, and they want to use that vote for someone who has similar views to themselves.
I don't know Simon and I have no ill will towards him, but when he posts things like this:
So long as I'm on the auDA Board, DNTrade has a seat at the table. I'm here to represent your views.
(bolding by Simon) but doesn't back it up with anything of any substance, it's difficult to read it as anything but lip service. I'm not saying it is lip service, but we need to be shown otherwise.
People are hiding behind the confidentiality issue, but I think that's a cop out. Sure you cannot discuss board issues, but I can't see anything in the Deed of Confidentiality which stops a director from expressing their own opinions.
George Pongas hasn't been shy in promoting his opinion, and rightly so. If you believe in something like he does, then you should let people know.
So what is stopping you or Simon from expressing your views on whether or not you are positive or negative on direct registrations? Hiding behind confidentiality and "lets worry about implementation" is a cop out in my opinion.
If the two directors up for election this year want votes from DNtrade members, they are simply going to have to do a better job. If they don't think they need our votes, then I guess they can rest easy and keep doing what they're doing...