The board of InternetNZ is presently suffering from ideological capture and views itself as a 'Treaty Partner' with concomititant obligations. It treats Registrant's domain registration fees in part as a means of creating social equity by distributing $1.0m per-annum to external organisations of its choosing.
Given that the .nz domain name Registrants are the primary stakeholders and it is their money that is being repurposed away from the governance and management of the domain name infrastructure, one potential solution is to give them a vote on what is a highly contentious and politicised activity by the board of InternetNZ. While there are over 700,000 .nz domain names registered there are likely less than half that number of actual Registrants. A simple poll asking Registrants if part of their domain name fees should be repurposed to support external activities and groups outside the core function of InternetNZ would deal with the problem presently being experienced.
Yes, it would come at a cost, but there are secure on-line voting systems available, and the cost would be considerably less than the money presently being repurposed every year.
InternetNZ board membes are welcome to support any indviduals or groups of their chosing, but do it with their own money, not revenue extracted from Registrants who presently have little or no control over how it is being spent.
Being a bear of little brain I had to read your piece three times to fully grasp the implications of what the board may be moving towards. Am I imagining it or are there echos of the BSA shenanigans? I agree with Rod Cameron and think "They need to stick specifically to their knitting" and not drift into imposing the ubiquitous critical theory/post-modern ideology on yet another of our institutions.
They need to stick specifically to their knitting as there are many alternative domain names in use in NZ if they get out of their lane. Roughly 750k using .nz and up to 400k using global domains like .com
OK, thanks for a very thorough explanation of the structure behind INZ. I am in full support of the FSU and their efforts to steer INZ away from their race-based communist ideology. Whatever those racist dipshits may personally think, that ain't their role. They are a rather crafty bunch and well aware that what they are doing is far-left activism. I watched as they filibustered their way through the administrative aspects of their AGM thus denying David Farrar more than 2 minutes to argue his motions. That Judd fellow is one of the more odious morons I have come across. Sure, that ain't a very academic argument, but there you go... Time to vote coming up to support some hopefully new Board members...
A well written informative essay, thanks for taking the time.. without oversimplfing the issue - special rights based on colour, re writing property laws, affirmative action is mainstream and considered 'normal' in Wgtn..the capture has already happened
Thank you David. Much of your lucid explanation is just what the Board should have made available to members. I’ve written an alert for FSU supporters. I wish I’d known of this to link to.
Sadly the blatantly ideological causes adopted by the Board make it prudent for us to fear the worst in the absence of explanations and detail from the incumbent Board. If DIA officials had been doing their job properly for Ministers who’d deserve trust from the people, they’d have consulted FSU as the group with the best claim to represent defenders of NZBORA. They’d have explained their concerns and objectives.
Thanks for your comment. I was aware voting day was approaching, and I wanted to post before votes started. INZ has great potential for good—a pity it has been captured in the way it has.
Your knowledge of comparable organisations in Aus, the UK and beyond is impressive David.
Do any of the others also have the ideal business model, that INZ has, and I personally have been v envious of, and would have loved to have for our business.
INZ have a monopoly position with a charitable status. No company tax to be concerned about, and the ability to distribute those untaxed profits to the charities of their choice.
It seems to me that they have planned to increase said charitable distributions by c$1M each year, and that was probably the main driver behind their recent c21% fee increase.
In relation to members really having a say; I haven't observed that in relation to the very substantial charitable donations, for example.
The board of InternetNZ is presently suffering from ideological capture and views itself as a 'Treaty Partner' with concomititant obligations. It treats Registrant's domain registration fees in part as a means of creating social equity by distributing $1.0m per-annum to external organisations of its choosing.
Given that the .nz domain name Registrants are the primary stakeholders and it is their money that is being repurposed away from the governance and management of the domain name infrastructure, one potential solution is to give them a vote on what is a highly contentious and politicised activity by the board of InternetNZ. While there are over 700,000 .nz domain names registered there are likely less than half that number of actual Registrants. A simple poll asking Registrants if part of their domain name fees should be repurposed to support external activities and groups outside the core function of InternetNZ would deal with the problem presently being experienced.
Yes, it would come at a cost, but there are secure on-line voting systems available, and the cost would be considerably less than the money presently being repurposed every year.
InternetNZ board membes are welcome to support any indviduals or groups of their chosing, but do it with their own money, not revenue extracted from Registrants who presently have little or no control over how it is being spent.
Being a bear of little brain I had to read your piece three times to fully grasp the implications of what the board may be moving towards. Am I imagining it or are there echos of the BSA shenanigans? I agree with Rod Cameron and think "They need to stick specifically to their knitting" and not drift into imposing the ubiquitous critical theory/post-modern ideology on yet another of our institutions.
An enlightening and helpful essay that confirmed my suspicions.
They need to stick specifically to their knitting as there are many alternative domain names in use in NZ if they get out of their lane. Roughly 750k using .nz and up to 400k using global domains like .com
Thanks for this.
OK, thanks for a very thorough explanation of the structure behind INZ. I am in full support of the FSU and their efforts to steer INZ away from their race-based communist ideology. Whatever those racist dipshits may personally think, that ain't their role. They are a rather crafty bunch and well aware that what they are doing is far-left activism. I watched as they filibustered their way through the administrative aspects of their AGM thus denying David Farrar more than 2 minutes to argue his motions. That Judd fellow is one of the more odious morons I have come across. Sure, that ain't a very academic argument, but there you go... Time to vote coming up to support some hopefully new Board members...
A well written informative essay, thanks for taking the time.. without oversimplfing the issue - special rights based on colour, re writing property laws, affirmative action is mainstream and considered 'normal' in Wgtn..the capture has already happened
Thanks for your concern and efforts.
Thank you David. Much of your lucid explanation is just what the Board should have made available to members. I’ve written an alert for FSU supporters. I wish I’d known of this to link to.
Sadly the blatantly ideological causes adopted by the Board make it prudent for us to fear the worst in the absence of explanations and detail from the incumbent Board. If DIA officials had been doing their job properly for Ministers who’d deserve trust from the people, they’d have consulted FSU as the group with the best claim to represent defenders of NZBORA. They’d have explained their concerns and objectives.
Instead they justify our suspicions.
Stephen
Thanks for your comment. I was aware voting day was approaching, and I wanted to post before votes started. INZ has great potential for good—a pity it has been captured in the way it has.
Your knowledge of comparable organisations in Aus, the UK and beyond is impressive David.
Do any of the others also have the ideal business model, that INZ has, and I personally have been v envious of, and would have loved to have for our business.
INZ have a monopoly position with a charitable status. No company tax to be concerned about, and the ability to distribute those untaxed profits to the charities of their choice.
It seems to me that they have planned to increase said charitable distributions by c$1M each year, and that was probably the main driver behind their recent c21% fee increase.
In relation to members really having a say; I haven't observed that in relation to the very substantial charitable donations, for example.