4 ms·

Restoring Nominet’s Purpose

81 points by ohashi 6y ago

ohashi 6y ago
Reading the numbers is pretty damning. A little mini-ICANN level capture going on in the UK. They also seem to be squirming according to The Register (https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/ 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.
- teknopaul 6y ago
  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.
  - mjw1007 6y ago
    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.)
    - g_p 6y ago
      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.
      - mjw1007 6y ago
        Right. 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.
        g_p 6y ago
        Agreed, consider lucrative in air-quotes. The ineptitude of the current leadership has meant they've been less than lucrative! Destabilising the current fiasco would certainly be an improvement in my view.
mjw1007 6y ago
Nominet are currently saying the second resolution (to appoint new directors) is invalid. More background from Kieren McCarthy: First: https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/31/nominet_board_vote/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/31/nominet_board_vote/ Most recent: https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  I find the executives legal arguments on motion 2 "not readily believable" 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 :-)
- g_p 6y ago
  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.
  - mjw1007 6y ago
    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.
    - 6y ago
robtaylor 6y ago
"Increased Top 3 Director pay 70% (from £1M to £1.7M)" Is there any benchmark on other registries for that figure?
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  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.
  - Mauricebranagh 6y ago
    Occom's CEO is on over 300k. Not sure I would want the body whose main job is to keep Rupert Murdoch happy in charge of the Uk registry
    - g_p 6y ago
      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.
      - 6y ago

81 points by ohashi 6y ago

Reading the numbers is pretty damning. A little mini-ICANN level capture going on in the UK. They also seem to be squirming according to The Register (https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/ 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.

teknopaul 6y ago
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.
- mjw1007 6y ago
  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.)
  - g_p 6y ago
    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.
    - mjw1007 6y ago
      Right. 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.
      - g_p 6y ago
        Agreed, consider lucrative in air-quotes. The ineptitude of the current leadership has meant they've been less than lucrative! Destabilising the current fiasco would certainly be an improvement in my view.

mjw1007 6y ago

Nominet are currently saying the second resolution (to appoint new directors) is invalid. More background from Kieren McCarthy: First: https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/31/nominet_board_vote/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/31/nominet_board_vote/ Most recent: https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/

Mauricebranagh 6y ago
I find the executives legal arguments on motion 2 "not readily believable" 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 :-)
g_p 6y ago
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.
- mjw1007 6y ago
  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.
  - 6y ago

robtaylor 6y ago

"Increased Top 3 Director pay 70% (from £1M to £1.7M)" Is there any benchmark on other registries for that figure?

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
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.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Occom's CEO is on over 300k. Not sure I would want the body whose main job is to keep Rupert Murdoch happy in charge of the Uk registry
  - g_p 6y ago
    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.
    - 6y ago