3 ms·

They didn't think they were in charge of running a domain registrar. They thought they were in charge of running a shiny business that was in the process of tr

They didn't think they were in charge of running a domain registrar. They thought they were in charge of running a shiny business that was in the process of transforming away from being principally a domain registrar, in the name of growth. The CEO was a mergers and acquisition specialist. You can find their stated reasons for believing that growth was vital here: https://www.nominet.uk/the-case-for-growth/ https://www.nominet.uk/the-case-for-growth/ « Without growth, we can’t innovate, and innovation is essential if we are to be ready for new technologies and emerging threats. Without growth and innovation, we can’t keep our vital staff who connect more than 10 million .UK domains and maintain our service without disruption or downtime. » I don't know whether they really believed these theories, or whether they really think of growth as an end in itself and were reaching for justifications, but the latter seems more likely to me.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
It's not obvious it was conscious. It's an endemic problem in British business culture, and there are obvious rewards for conforming. People who do "growth" and "strategy" invariably seem to believe they're worth the big money, even if they're actually harming their organisations and lowering their effectiveness and survival prospects. If they're as good as they think they are they should have no trouble selling their innovation elsewhere.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tinus_hn 6y ago
Their idea probably was that if the company wasn’t going to grow, why would it need an expensive board member such as themselves?
- walrus01 6y ago
  Sounds like an interesting chicken-or-egg question for a business ethics textbook.
  - mikeyouse 6y ago
    The business world is rife with these kind of situations. When you hire new leadership, how do you signal that you’ve hired top talent? By paying them above median wages. What happens to median wages when every company turns over their leadership every 18 months and pays replacement execs “above median”?
g_p 6y ago
> Without growth and innovation, we can’t keep our vital staff who connect more than 10 million .UK domains and maintain our service without disruption or downtime. » They had all of their growth and innovation, and couldn't keep their own basic website up (before being posted to HN) [1]. Presumably it was, as you say, a justification. [1] https://twitter.com/444rrrggghhh/status/1374103065889026053 https://twitter.com/444rrrggghhh/status/1374103065889026053
andrewf 6y ago
Core infrastructure (domain registration, SSL certs, IP addresses, peering exchanges) mostly need administration and maintenance. But NGOs in this space seem haunted by a compulsion to do more. It's interesting - and possibly correct - that the leadership projected their own feelings onto the staff here. They're basically throwing their hands up and saying "but that's boring!" Handing humans a revenue stream and a dictate to "keep a steady hand on the tiller" seems prone to the same failure mode as asking a proverbial AI to "just make us some paperclips".
- flemhans 6y ago
  It's the same with every TLD. They invent processes, paperwork, registrar meetings, weird EPP extensions, user verification, arbitration procedures, hearings, just to make themselves useful and have a reason for the annual payments.
  - edoceo 6y ago
    The bureaucracy exists to increase the bureaucracy.
Centigonal 6y ago
If they wanted the business to grow, perhaps reinvesting the multiple millions of dollars they were paying themselves back into expanding the business would have been a prudent choice. You pay yourself in excess when you think your business's ROIC will be poor/risky or your tenure will be short. These folks are either not very smart or just hypocrites.

TheOtherHobbes 6y ago

It's not obvious it was conscious. It's an endemic problem in British business culture, and there are obvious rewards for conforming. People who do "growth" and "strategy" invariably seem to believe they're worth the big money, even if they're actually harming their organisations and lowering their effectiveness and survival prospects. If they're as good as they think they are they should have no trouble selling their innovation elsewhere.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tinus_hn 6y ago

Their idea probably was that if the company wasn’t going to grow, why would it need an expensive board member such as themselves?

walrus01 6y ago
Sounds like an interesting chicken-or-egg question for a business ethics textbook.
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  The business world is rife with these kind of situations. When you hire new leadership, how do you signal that you’ve hired top talent? By paying them above median wages. What happens to median wages when every company turns over their leadership every 18 months and pays replacement execs “above median”?

g_p 6y ago

> Without growth and innovation, we can’t keep our vital staff who connect more than 10 million .UK domains and maintain our service without disruption or downtime. » They had all of their growth and innovation, and couldn't keep their own basic website up (before being posted to HN) [1]. Presumably it was, as you say, a justification. [1] https://twitter.com/444rrrggghhh/status/1374103065889026053 https://twitter.com/444rrrggghhh/status/1374103065889026053

andrewf 6y ago

Core infrastructure (domain registration, SSL certs, IP addresses, peering exchanges) mostly need administration and maintenance. But NGOs in this space seem haunted by a compulsion to do more. It's interesting - and possibly correct - that the leadership projected their own feelings onto the staff here. They're basically throwing their hands up and saying "but that's boring!" Handing humans a revenue stream and a dictate to "keep a steady hand on the tiller" seems prone to the same failure mode as asking a proverbial AI to "just make us some paperclips".

flemhans 6y ago
It's the same with every TLD. They invent processes, paperwork, registrar meetings, weird EPP extensions, user verification, arbitration procedures, hearings, just to make themselves useful and have a reason for the annual payments.
- edoceo 6y ago
  The bureaucracy exists to increase the bureaucracy.

Centigonal 6y ago

If they wanted the business to grow, perhaps reinvesting the multiple millions of dollars they were paying themselves back into expanding the business would have been a prudent choice. You pay yourself in excess when you think your business's ROIC will be poor/risky or your tenure will be short. These folks are either not very smart or just hypocrites.