Looking for your vote, UK domainers. AMA

[LCHappy]

The rest is just insinuation that exists solely because Nominet's past behaviour has lead to such much distrust and aggression that attack mode has become a default for some.

A big part of why I'm standing is I realised this last time around - where the chair and CEO were fired - that Nominet's culture risks becoming a culture of conflict. I saw the exact same thing at ICANN; embedded positions of mistrust.

You attacked two honest candidates without provocation in your mailings. Yet you say you worry about aggression and conflicts, and you are the man to sort it out?

 

[ukbackorder]

'If domainers want a Nominet that just does its job, that listens to and respects their views, and which makes decisions that they can follow and influence, then I think the choice is clear.'

Anyone can 'listen and respect views' then ignore them. That's what nominet do. That's what they've done for years. As an aside I'm fed up with people expecting me to 'respect' their views. Respect is earned, not given. Should I 'respect' Osama Bin Laden's views? Anyway I digress.
I think you've shot yourself in the foot a bit with this thread. If I had received a voting document I would now have voted for Jim.

 

[Kieren]

PS. Sealioning that’s a funny word. Not heard of that before, thanks for the link.

This is the best - or, at least, most entertaining - version of it:

 

[super-whois]

What I stand for is clear: https://www.kierenmccarthy.co.uk/nominet/

Who I am is clear: https://www.theregister.com/2021/04/01/nominet_future_plans/

So you won't answer any of the questions put to you?

 

[Kieren]

'If domainers want a Nominet that just does its job, that listens to and respects their views, and which makes decisions that they can follow and influence, then I think the choice is clear.'

Anyone can 'listen and respect views' then ignore them. That's what nominet do. That's what they've done for years.

I agree, apart from the "respect" part. I don't think Nominet respected the views of domainers at all. In fact - as I repeatedly reported on - they sometimes went out their way to ignore them.

https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/20/nominet_promises_uk_domain_holders/

I am standing specifically to make sure that doesn't happen again. And I know how to do it in a real, lasting way because I've done it before. That's what I'm standing on: fixing things.

If you have questions over how this would actually work, ask. I have answers.

In the meantime, if you didn't get a voting document, then email [email protected] or call their member line on 01865 332233 and say you didn't receive it, or an email from Civica with a link to vote, and give them an email address to send to instead.

 

[CreativeMix]

We have a situation here where if we aren't careful, Kieren and Jim will dilute the votes of smaller members and gift the position to Volker.

I voted Jim Davies because, for one he's seeking answers on who was involved in the decision making process around the investment in CyGlass. The loss of $23 Million needs addressing especially given the bonuses that these incompetents have been awarded and as a minimum there needs to be an independent enquiry into the whole debacle. If evidence of misdoing, either criminal or professional is found then people need to be held accountable, the whole board signed off on this investment and that should make us question whether we have confidence in them?

Kieren's attitude to this seems to be, nothing to see here, let's move on?

 

[Kieren]

We have a situation here where if we aren't careful, Kieren and Jim will dilute the votes of smaller members and gift the position to Volker.

In fact the opposite may be true under the rating voting system that Nominet uses.

When you vote, you rate in order of preference: 1, 2, 3. If no one gets more than 50 per cent of people's first votes, then the person with the least first votes is pulled out, and that person's second votes are added to the others' tallies.

Because there are some large registrars that have said they put me as their first choice and Volker second, the actual risk of "gifting the position to Volker" lies in voting for Jim.

But fundamentally, just vote for who you want in the order you want them.


------------
Re: Cyglass

Kieren's attitude to this seems to be, nothing to see here, let's move on?

My attitude is here, and it is very, very far from "nothing to see here": https://www.kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2022/08/10/what-nominet-must-learn-from-the-cyglass-debacle/

Here is the last part of it:

Why does this matter and what should happen now?
Those who don’t learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

While the organisation has admitted that it lost roughly £18m buying and supporting CyGlass, there’s been very little effort to dig into why Nominet made such a terrible investment, why it continued to invest many millions more, why the organisation wasn’t honest with its members, and what systems are in place to prevent something similar from happening again.

Even Simon Blackler, who successfully forced Nominet to confront its failures through the Public Benefit campaign and now sits on the Board has made it plain that he does not intend to look deeper into the problem.

While I agree with Simon that an official inquiry is not the answer, I don’t agree that it should be swept under the carpet. It is worth considering what Nominet should have done last month when it finally announced the end of its connection with CyGlass, why it didn’t, and what that means about where the organisation is, and needs to go, in its reform efforts.

Here’s what should have happened:

• Nominet should have acknowledged that CyGlass was a flawed acquisition and should not have occurred
• It should have planned ahead and used the sale to announce a new Nominet acquisition policy that clarifies its position over commercial ventures
• It should have published the minutes of previous Board discussions that have previously been withheld under “commercial confidentiality” reasons to demonstrate that Nominet is acting professionally and conscientiously on its members’ behalf
• It should have assured members that there are additional financial controls in place that will prevent the payout of large sums and bonuses connected to an acquisition
• It should have provided some form of “lessons learnt” document and considered apologising to rebuild trust with members on this critical issue

The fact that Nominet failed to do any of these is a worrying sign that the organisation is still not able to admit to its mistakes or properly address its own internal flaws.

Here is what needs to happen going forward if Nominet is to properly reform itself and so avoid sleepwalking into another fierce internal conflict in a few years’ time:

• Take and provide comprehensive Board minutes that indicate the degree of thought and consideration that go into making decisions
• Publish minutes of Board Committee meetings, not just Board meetings
• Publish staff reports, redacted for commercial sensitivities where necessary, to demonstrate transparency and accountability
• Overhaul communications, consider how members will receive news and prepare honest answers to obvious questions in advance
• Hold member-engagement sessions around events such as this rather than generic Zoom meetings at short notice
• Be prepared to admit fault and to ask for forgiveness

CyGlass was a costly failure for Nominet; it could also be a valuable lesson.


---------

 

[CreativeMix]

You're essentially saying that we should trust Nominet to do the right thing and perform an enquiry into itself? Nominet have shown on many occasions that rather than address it's failings, it prefers to hide them using pay-offs and NDA's. They cannot be trusted and only an independent enquiry will show the extent of management / board failings.

 

[LCHappy]

Even Simon Blackler, who successfully forced Nominet to confront its failures through the Public Benefit campaign and now sits on the Board has made it plain that he does not intend to look deeper into the problem.

That's Simon's problem and I won't be voting for him again.

What is the harm in an independent inquiry into it? What are people scared to find out?

The Barrister's opinion says there is a very good chance Nominet's weighted voting is unlawful, and it should never have changed from one member to one vote.

Again, swept under the carpet, despite the huge ramifications for the company. I've just seen your Twitter engagements, you have no interest in exploring if the company structure is wrong based on weighted voting.

Sorry but the last thing Nominet needs is people standing for election and not bothered about investigating these things. It's the job of an NED to challenge the board. Challenge is good, and the challenge is healthy.

There is only one Candidate wanting to look into anything, and it isn't @Kieren

 

[Ben Thomas]

When you vote, you rate in order of preference: 1, 2, 3.

What if you just put your favourite and leave the rest.

 

[DJ]

You only vote for your first and second I believe.

 

[Kieren]

What if you just put your favourite and leave the rest.

Then you have less of a say than everyone else in the event your preferred candidate doesn't win.

 

[Ben Thomas]

You only vote for your first and second I believe.

I have only ever voted for my favourite and left the rest. Especially so if I don't think they align with my own goals/morals.

I think Simon Blackler has done a lot more for Nominet than you @Kieren, with respect, I don't think dragging his name into mud is going to do you any favours.

I also agree that weighted voting is illegal, and favours the big corps.

 

[Kieren]

What is the harm in an independent inquiry into it? What are people scared to find out?

Here's my main argument against insisting on an independent inquiry as a new Board member:

* The Nominet Board is not going to do it. Full stop.

In fact, the Board has already said it won't do it. So, as a new Board member you have already lost your first battle and fail to deliver on a key election promise.

And then, if history is anything to go by, you end up a massive internal battle, which you lose, demand that the chair and CEO resign, which they don't, and end up having to resign after the organisation sues you.

https://www.theregister.com/2008/11/10/nominet_resignation_call/
https://www.theregister.com/2009/01/26/davies_nominet_resignation/

That's the political argument.

The organisational argument is that a review will solve nothing, take a long time, cost a lot of money, use up a lot of resources that could be better used rebuilding the relationship with members and instead pitch a new Board against them.

The Board, were it to agree to an independent review - which it won't - would likely also put any difficult reforms on ice and wait for the outcome of the review. And then it would ignore whichever it didn't like (as has happened not once but twice before).

And then when they don't implement the recommendations, what will the Board member that got a seat on the back of arguing for an independent review do? They'll resign.

So it's now 2025 and nothing has changed. So what happens? The angry members start arguing for another EGM. And so it begins all over again.

--------

What I'm arguing and standing for is to put an end to this cycle by focussing entirely on the very things that members have said are getting in the way of real reform: member engagement and trust and better communications.

I have been a journalist for 20 years and I understand communication. I have followed Nominet for 20 years and I understand how it works. I have been the general manager of public participation for a member organisation - ICANN - that is larger and more complicated than Nominet. And I am willing to work to make it happen.

That's my pitch.

 

[CreativeMix]

That's my pitch.

But history shows us that the board and senior management can't and shouldn't be trusted, in the main because they view the "domainer" membership as nothing more than an irritation that has to be endured, they certainly don't respect us.

I was having a conversation today and I likened Nominet's relationship with large registrars to that of the Labour party and the unions, where votes and by definition power is lent in return for preferential treatment. It's an unhealthy relationship that enables incompetence to go unchecked and more worryingly, rewarded. This needs to be addressed but that will never happen under the current management team and board.

Of course they won't allow an independent enquiry, they know it would be damning. The fact that you accept that tells me you aren't the person for the job.

 

[ukbackorder]

What we need is an EGM where we replace everyone but then *don't* get bought off with stupid 'advisory' committees and 'consultations'.
However that ship has sailed. We really got what we deserve. Living in one of the most corrupt countries in the world I'm used to it Nominet is a microcosm of our government.

 

[Kieren]

But history shows us that the board and senior management can't and shouldn't be trusted, in the main because they view the "domainer" membership as nothing more than an irritation that has to be endured, they certainly don't respect us.

All I can tell you is that I have been in a similar situation before and I helped make real changes.

It's not easy, it takes time, but it results in an actual organisational shift rather than more distrust and anger.

Just in case you have any doubt as to where I stand: I think domainers are an integral part of the .uk industry and they deserve equal say and equal respect in decisions made by Nominet. If I get on, I will work to make that happen.

 

[LCHappy]

Kieren, you seem to be bringing a lot of misunderstood baggage from 10 years ago into this process.

And then, if history is anything to go by, you end up a massive internal battle, which you lose, demand that the chair and CEO resign, which they don't, and end up having to resign after the organisation sues you.

That is some stretch of the imagination.

How about, you take your arguments into the board room, sell to them why an investigation would be a good idea, why not having one wouldn't be a good idea and then talk to people. None of the current board were involved in the CyGlass decisions. If you try, you'd be amazed at what can be achieved.

If you aren't going to try, then it doesn't matter whether it is this issue or another issue, there is no point standing for the board.

That's the political argument.

The organisational argument is that a review will solve nothing,

arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

How do you know that until you'd had the investigation?

 

[Kieren]

That is some stretch of the imagination.

That's literally what happened. With the same guy who's standing now.

And the other guy? He was on the Board when the former CEO shut down the Nominet Trust and killed Board minutes - thereby making members blind to where all their money was going.

None of the current board were involved in the CyGlass decisions. If you try, you'd be amazed at what can be achieved.

They've literally already said they won't do it.


Look, I'm just as annoyed and frustrated that Nominet went down this crazy VC path as anyone else - I spend months digging into it and I wrote lots of new articles that sparked the Public Benefit campaign in the first place.

Russell Haworth attacked my reporting and called it fake news. So I punched back: https://www.theregister.com/2019/06/06/nominet_uk_domain_names/

But the job is done. The CEO and everyone that enabled him on the Board are gone.

Now the job is to fix things so it can't happen again, and at the same time, shift how Nominet functions so members can start to trust it again (and that was a long time ago now).


Kieren

 

[LCHappy]

That's literally what happened. With the same guy who's standing now.

And the other guy? He was on the Board when the former CEO shut down the Nominet Trust and killed Board minutes - thereby making members blind to where all their money was going.

Talking about the issues going back to 2008 when Jim resigned. They didn't sue Jim because he disagreed with them on some minor issue in the board room, he was whistleblowing on wider Governance problems that another director resigned on. Minor differences don't instantly turn out into legal action, even at Nominet. There are two issues being confused there.

They've literally already said they won't do it.

Well we can agree to disagree that when someone tells you this that it means stop trying.