Nominet Refuses to Agree To Confirm Fair Non-Executive Director Elections

During settlement negotiations in a recent court case, Nominet was invited to confirm that it would run its NED elections “…fairly, without prejudice to any candidates, and acknowledging that it has a duty to all candidates to do so”.

Astonishingly, Nominet refused to agree to what should surely have been an uncontroversial statement.

Instead, they doubled down and wrongly argued that it meant that a settlement agreement had not been reached. They even took that to court. That court appearance probably cost around £35,000 in wasted costs to the company.

Why did they do that?  As this year’s election is beginning, what explanation can the Nominet board and its executive give for refusing to confirm their duty to conduct fair and unbiased elections?