The piece states plainly that the NCC "did our best to ensure the message got across" on the charging scheme, details the channels used to do it, and frames the members who voted Model A as organisations who "didn't get the memo".

However, the NCC's own site describes it as "an open and transparent, neutral and impartial organisation" with "no commercial interests or influences".

I am struggling to reconcile the two. A neutral secretariat informs the membership and lets it decide. It does not work to secure a preferred outcome and then treat the result it did not want as a communication failure on the members' part. The members voted, and Model A won. That is not a memo that went astray, it is a decision.

I would welcome the NCC's view on the labs article.  Specifically, do you regard the effort to influence/steer/whip the vote toward Model B as consistent with the neutrality and impartiality you publish, and where does the NCC place the boundary between informing members and campaigning among them?

To be clear, I am not questioning the Board's right to recommend a model. I am questioning whether the secretariat should be working the vote at all. Or should I expect a personalised email next spring telling me which Board candidates I would be "better off" voting for?

Andy