[HN Gopher] Restoring Nominet's Purpose
___________________________________________________________________
Restoring Nominet's Purpose
Author : ohashi
Score : 74 points
Date : 2021-02-19 10:34 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (publicbenefit.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (publicbenefit.uk)
| mjw1007 wrote:
| 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/
|
| Most recent:
| https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/
| g_p wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| g_p wrote:
| 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.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Ok new EGM and replace the lot
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| 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 :-)
| robtaylor wrote:
| "Increased Top 3 Director pay 70% (from PS1M to PS1.7M)"
|
| Is there any benchmark on other registries for that figure?
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Hmm maybe BEIS (Department for Business, Energy and
| Industrial Strategy) having a board seat might be a good
| idea.
|
| 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.
| ohashi wrote:
| 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/)
|
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-19 23:02 UTC)