Nominet Kieren McCarthy to join Nominet Board

[Acorn Newsbot]

Following this year’s member elected director election, we are pleased to welcome Kieren McCarthy to the Nominet Board. Kieren will join the Board at the end of the AGM on Thursday 6th October, for a three-year term.

Thanks to all the candidates who took part in this year’s election.

Having served her three-year term, Anne Taylor will be stepping down after the AGM.

A summary of the voting together with an overview of the voting results are now available.

The post Kieren McCarthy to join Nominet Board appeared first on Nominet.

Continue reading...

 

[Kieren]

Thank you to those that voted for me, and to those who have engaged with me on Acorn.

As promised, this is just the start of figuring out how to make Nominet work in the interests of all its members and .uk end users.

First thought in my head today: despite a pretty robust and public election process, only 15% of Nominet members voted. This is far too low.

So if you are a Nominet member and didn't vote, I'd be genuinely interested in understanding why - and it doesn't have to be a grand, philosophical reason; just the truth.


Kieren

 

[LCHappy]

 

[Kieren]

 

[bluerock]

I didn’t vote and had no intention. Been a member over 20 years and just utterly disillusioned.
Completely tired of people having their own agendas, promising to do this and that and ultimately failing to deliver.

I used to enjoy Nominets AGM’s when they engaged with members and actually listened. That ceased many years ago, as did my interest in how they are run.

 

[martin-s]

Continue to feel utterly disengaged with the organisation and its leadership, even despite some progress being made.

 

[xdnet]

I used to enjoy Nominets AGM’s when they engaged with members and actually listened. That ceased many years ago, as did my interest in how they are run.

Continue to feel utterly disengaged with the organisation and its leadership, even despite some progress being made.

Genuine question, what would engage you both?

What are the changes you'd want to see to feel like they're listening?

What can they do differently?

I ask as I'm on the UKRAC and while I see plenty of issues with Nominet I'm still keen to understand why other members don't engage or vote, and how we can bring more people into the discussion and try and get the issues fixed...

 

[CreativeMix]

An independent enquiry into the loss of $23 Million would be a start. Who was involved in the decision making, why - given the size of the loss - did senior management continue to receive huge bonuses, has anybody that works or has worked for Nominet got shares or holdings in Cyglass, either directly or indirectly? So many questions need answering.

However, that's unlikely to happen because Nominet has a long history of hiding their incompetence and who knows, maybe corruption. They pay people off, using NDAs and in some cases the amounts paid out are huge. This has led to a culture of contempt fueled in part by the fact that they've written the rules in such a way that they're untouchable. Without overstating the situation, they could be hiding anything!

 

[Kieren]

I didn’t vote and had no intention. Been a member over 20 years and just utterly disillusioned.
Completely tired of people having their own agendas, promising to do this and that and ultimately failing to deliver.

I used to enjoy Nominets AGM’s when they engaged with members and actually listened. That ceased many years ago, as did my interest in how they are run.

I hear you.

I will work on coming good on my promises and then come back to you.

I agree re: AGM. It's become more of an orchestrated battle than a genuine meeting of a member organisation. That's going to take some time to fix but it would definitely be a sign of improvement if it got back to where it used to be.


Kieren

 

[Kieren]

Continue to feel utterly disengaged with the organisation and its leadership, even despite some progress being made.

Yep, that's right. I'll start working on ways to shift that and then get back.


Kieren

 

[Kieren]

An independent enquiry into the loss of $23 Million would be a start. Who was involved in the decision making, why - given the size of the loss - did senior management continue to receive huge bonuses, has anybody that works or has worked for Nominet got shares or holdings in Cyglass, either directly or indirectly? So many questions need answering.

However, that's unlikely to happen because Nominet has a long history of hiding their incompetence and who knows, maybe corruption. They pay people off, using NDAs and in some cases the amounts paid out are huge. This has led to a culture of contempt fueled in part by the fact that they've written the rules in such a way that they're untouchable. Without overstating the situation, they could be hiding anything!

I'm not going to push for a review into CyGlass (I explain why here: https://www.kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2022/08/10/what-nominet-must-learn-from-the-cyglass-debacle/) but I will definitely push for much greater transparency and accountability, and then for structural changes that making something like it impossible in future.

CyGlass was a low point and should serve as a salutary lesson for years to come.


Kieren

 

[CreativeMix]

I'm not going to push for a review into CyGlass (I explain why here: https://www.kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2022/08/10/what-nominet-must-learn-from-the-cyglass-debacle/) but I will definitely push for much greater transparency and accountability, and then for structural changes that making something like it impossible in future.

CyGlass was a low point and should serve as a salutary lesson for years to come.


Kieren

The first thing I'd deal with, is coming to terms with the fact that you have zero power to affect change and until that isn't the case, yours and every other candidates platitudes will fall on deaf ears. Still, never mind you're on the gravy train now, pick up your five-figure annual retainer, build your network and sail off into the sunset.

 

[CreativeMix]

CyGlass was a low point and should serve as a salutary lesson for years to come.

Can you explain why they would learn anything given that nobody appears to have been held accountable for the loss. I'd argue that the opposite is in fact true, when you consider that senior management still got their huge bonuses?

 

[Kieren]

The first thing I'd deal with, is coming to terms with the fact that you have zero power to affect change and until that isn't the case, yours and every other candidates platitudes will fall on deaf ears. Still, never mind you're on the gravy train now, pick up your five-figure annual retainer, build your network and sail off into the sunset.

Well, I will have significantly less power if members follow this thinking and decide straight out the gate that their rep has no power and doesn't want to represent them anyway.

A big part of any improvements will fall on members like you. If you want to effect actual change, let's work together. It will be harder and maybe less immediately satisfying than anonymous abuse, but it's a better option.

 

[xdnet]

their rep has no power and doesn't want to represent them anyway.

I quote from the annual report:

"Members elect four directors to Nominet’s Board: these are required by law to consider all stakeholders and not act solely in the members’ interests; they bring a critically important member viewpoint into the heart of Nominet’s governance."
​

The moment you take the position you are no longer our 'rep' and are duty bound to act and consider all stakeholders and the companies interests. Therefore whether you want to represent members or not is rather diluted due to the fiduciary duties of the position.

 

[CreativeMix]

Well, I will have significantly less power if members follow this thinking and decide straight out the gate that their rep has no power and doesn't want to represent them anyway.

A big part of any improvements will fall on members like you. If you want to effect actual change, let's work together. It will be harder and maybe less immediately satisfying than anonymous abuse, but it's a better option.

@Admin We need a vomit emoji if this fella is going to be hanging around.

You're either very naive or full of shit. Whichever it is, you have no power, what makes you think you do?

 

[Ben Thomas]

We need a vomit emoji if this fella is going to be hanging around.

You're either very naive or full of shit.

Haha love it, Northern born n bred

 

[CreativeMix]

If you care that much, why didn't you try to get elected and try to bring in changes that make the role worthwhile? You're just trying to cause trouble, as always.

Who are you, his boyfriend?

 

[Kieren]

I quote from the annual report:

"Members elect four directors to Nominet’s Board: these are required by law to consider all stakeholders and not act solely in the members’ interests; they bring a critically important member viewpoint into the heart of Nominet’s governance."
​

The moment you take the position you are no longer our 'rep' and are duty bound to act and consider all stakeholders and the companies interests. Therefore whether you want to represent members or not is rather diluted due to the fiduciary duties of the position.

i am your rep. Given the EGM and its result and impact, I don’t find that at all incompatible with a director’s fiduciary duties.

Kieren

 

[xdnet]

i am your rep. Given the EGM and its result and impact, I don’t find that at all incompatible with a director’s fiduciary duties.

I will happily be shown otherwise. I've seen a lot of people cowed by the boards collective responsibility and the threat of their apparent legal obligations as directors.

(FWIW, and IANAL, but I agree that it's perfectly reasonable to make the case that if the members aren't happy - within reason - then company is at risk of further EGMs, and therefore members wishes should be paramount for the best interests of the company)