I wouldn't assume a "unanimous" statement from the board was genuinely unanimous at this point. It's clear the executives at Nominet are hell-bent on trying to

I wouldn't assume a "unanimous" statement from the board was genuinely unanimous at this point. It's clear the executives at Nominet are hell-bent on trying to cling on through any means possible, including deception. They are willing to shut down any form of communication between members that isn't in their interest. It wouldn't be the first time they were just saying anything they thought would save their skin. I'd be wondering what weasel-word definition of unanimous could have been concocted in this context. Perhaps they mean unanimous based on members of the board present at a meeting where quorum was established, but none of the elected members were present? It was therefore the unanimous view of the board (if the board was quorate without any elected members present) In any case, removing the unelected members will make clear to the elected members (who are accountable to the membership if they want re-elected) that the tide has changed. If they don't like it, they can be de-elected too per the articles of association as well, I would presume.