Defo needs support from all and any who can. Nominet is run by corrupt people. While those trying for change are not saying it in those terms, IMHO that what it is. They took a nonprofit and have been rinsing it for years. Personally profiting to the tune of millions of pounds in the process.
I think there's some truth in that, but I think the bigger problem is that the people running it genuinely don't understand that Nominet's purpose is to do the best job it can of being the UK's NIC.
Instead they believe that it has an overriding goal to grow and increase its surplus (although that's nowhere in the objects set out in its memorandum of association). You can see that in the annual reports, from what they describe as successes.
Basically, as far as I can tell, the sort of people that end up running large nonprofits are so steeped in the culture of for-profit organisations that they adopt this profit-oriented worldview without even considering whether it's appropriate.
The most obvious example in Nominet's case was its "diversification" into autonomous vehicles. I don't think that can remotely be justified in terms of the organisation's stated objects, and as far as I can tell the CEO didn't think he had any need to try to do so.
(Of course it doesn't hurt that the larger Nominet's surplus is, and the more people it employs, the easier it is to justify large salaries for themselves, either.)
Nominet has been hell-bent on trying to get into lucrative side areas. They seem keen to heavily position themselves in anything they feel they can trade in their reputation as the UK's NIC. Anything involving a database or cyber-security, they're all over, trying to use their NIC status as a USP.
When it started to get to things like autonomous vehicles, that's when it starts to get a bit murky and strange. Nominet surely ought to stick to what it does - it's a non-profit, and could focus its resources into its core goal, rather than constantly trying to turn a profit in other sectors.
Though I think a certain amount of the current anger is coming from the fact that their expeditions into side areas have been the opposite of lucrative in practice.
To the extent that the board's suggestion that adopting the EGM's resolutions « would have a critical destabilising impact, leaving the company leaderless » might look more like a positive than a negative to some members.
In a way this shouldn't be too important. Even if the second resolution can't be put at the EGM, the first can still pass and remove the people who are the root of the problems. I don't think anyone is really concerned about removing the problem directors without replacement right now.
The board would then be under the control of reliable individuals, who could immediately convene a new meeting under whatever normal rules would stand, having removed the problematic directors.
The organisation would therefore seem able to operate absolutely fine without the problem directors. I understand this is the current plan - this seems like a last-ditch attempt to stay in power, but there isn't a hard-and-fast need to install new directors to complete the removal.
Is it clear that the remaining directors (the elected ones) are reliable individuals?
The letter from the board says "the Board is unanimous in its view that Simon’s proposed resolution should be rejected", so it seems possible to me that if the first resolution passes the remaining members won't act in accordance with the EGM's wishes.
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.
Comparing pay to other registries in other countries might not be a fair comparison considering local job-market effects - a better comparison may be to other public-benefit bodies in other industries within the UK. Though I can't think of any from the top-of-my-head... I was going to suggest OFCOM but that's a legit public department, not an industry body, I don't think Nominet is even a Quango.
----
On a related note: I'm actually surprised at this point that Nominet hasn't been subsumed into OFCOM or similar - considering the vital role it plays in the UK's digital infrastructure. From a top-down perspective, it makes sense for Nominet to be part of the state apparatus, which certainly introduces accountability and transparency, I'm just wary of _the establishment_ at this point.
A simpler alternative might be to place Nominet under clearer supervision from a more active government departmental supervisor.
Ofcom already has many regulatory functions and is being pushed to expand into online harms as well now.
Perhaps getting BEIS to carry out more active oversight of Nominet would be a good way to do this? BEIS could certainly provide a competent high-level board member, along the lines of the credibility of the 2 proposed new members as part of resolution 2 of the EGM.
Putting Nominet under closer scrutiny would certainly seem to be an option, allowing it to be independent of government, but accountable in situations such as the present one.
17 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 28.6 ms ] threadThey also seem to be squirming according to The Register (https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/)
The votes seem to be there based on who is supporting it. Hope it gets more attention and better reform for the .UK registry.
Instead they believe that it has an overriding goal to grow and increase its surplus (although that's nowhere in the objects set out in its memorandum of association). You can see that in the annual reports, from what they describe as successes.
Basically, as far as I can tell, the sort of people that end up running large nonprofits are so steeped in the culture of for-profit organisations that they adopt this profit-oriented worldview without even considering whether it's appropriate.
The most obvious example in Nominet's case was its "diversification" into autonomous vehicles. I don't think that can remotely be justified in terms of the organisation's stated objects, and as far as I can tell the CEO didn't think he had any need to try to do so.
(Of course it doesn't hurt that the larger Nominet's surplus is, and the more people it employs, the easier it is to justify large salaries for themselves, either.)
When it started to get to things like autonomous vehicles, that's when it starts to get a bit murky and strange. Nominet surely ought to stick to what it does - it's a non-profit, and could focus its resources into its core goal, rather than constantly trying to turn a profit in other sectors.
Though I think a certain amount of the current anger is coming from the fact that their expeditions into side areas have been the opposite of lucrative in practice.
To the extent that the board's suggestion that adopting the EGM's resolutions « would have a critical destabilising impact, leaving the company leaderless » might look more like a positive than a negative to some members.
Destabilising the current fiasco would certainly be an improvement in my view.
More background from Kieren McCarthy:
First: https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/31/nominet_board_vote/
Most recent: https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/
The board would then be under the control of reliable individuals, who could immediately convene a new meeting under whatever normal rules would stand, having removed the problematic directors.
The organisation would therefore seem able to operate absolutely fine without the problem directors. I understand this is the current plan - this seems like a last-ditch attempt to stay in power, but there isn't a hard-and-fast need to install new directors to complete the removal.
The letter from the board says "the Board is unanimous in its view that Simon’s proposed resolution should be rejected", so it seems possible to me that if the first resolution passes the remaining members won't act in accordance with the EGM's wishes.
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.
The EGM could suspend various bits and appoint the two proposed directors pending an election for example.
Its telling the executive has not actually quoted or explained its reasoning.
Maybe I should get Ivan to propose me as a board member :-)
Is there any benchmark on other registries for that figure?
----
On a related note: I'm actually surprised at this point that Nominet hasn't been subsumed into OFCOM or similar - considering the vital role it plays in the UK's digital infrastructure. From a top-down perspective, it makes sense for Nominet to be part of the state apparatus, which certainly introduces accountability and transparency, I'm just wary of _the establishment_ at this point.
Not sure I would want the body whose main job is to keep Rupert Murdoch happy in charge of the Uk registry
Ofcom already has many regulatory functions and is being pushed to expand into online harms as well now.
Perhaps getting BEIS to carry out more active oversight of Nominet would be a good way to do this? BEIS could certainly provide a competent high-level board member, along the lines of the credibility of the 2 proposed new members as part of resolution 2 of the EGM.
Putting Nominet under closer scrutiny would certainly seem to be an option, allowing it to be independent of government, but accountable in situations such as the present one.
Not sure they BEIS have the experience to hold Nominet to account - but hey offer me a grade 6 and id be happy join BEIS.