Nominet’s Registry Advisory Council – a greater say for members

[Acorn Newsbot]

As COVID-19 forced Nominet into an entirely virtual working environment last year, we had to adapt how we connect with members. In the first 12 months, we hosted more than 20 virtual events ranging from webinars to CEO/Chair Zoom calls. Despite this, it is clear that some members feel their views have not been heard, and this is underscored by the upcoming EGM.

We are naturally disappointed that we have reached this stage. But we are also committed to ensuring every member’s voice is heard and so, we believe a new way to engage with a broader spectrum of members is needed – one that directly influences the direction of Nominet.

That’s why in January, we announced plans to create a Registry Advisory Council (RAC).

Through the Council, we want to engage more consistently and effectively with all of our constituencies.

Our vision – closely aligned to the ideas in the Lyons review of 2015 – is that the RAC will play a key role in delivering on Nominet’s wider purpose, helping us to understand how to create a secure, inclusive and connected future for all.

The idea is a collaborative group, organised to have real impact, that can make specific and concrete recommendations to the Board, similar to the way that ICANN communities provide input on key issues. We will look for specific guidance on domain policy and pricing, but we think the influence of the Council could go further to shape our wider purpose – for example crowd-sourcing public benefit funding ideas aligned to our purpose, or testing areas of potential technical innovations (DNS, cyber etc).

We want to hear from you before we settle on a structure for the Council, but our current thinking is that it would include two members each from the large, medium and small registrars, and one each from the domain and IP protection communities. Each community would choose their representatives through a vote.

The RAC Chair would be a member-elected Non-Executive member of the Nominet board, who would also sit on the Board’s Remuneration Committee.

We’re getting some good input from members on the five questions raised for the RAC and we are picking up the pace to get the RAC in place in the near future. To this end, we will soon be setting out how nominations and elections for the RAC will work, leading up to a launch in June.

For now, we’re keen for your suggestions and ideas. Please send them to us, and keep an eye out for more information about the RAC in the coming weeks.

The post Nominet’s Registry Advisory Council – a greater say for members appeared first on Nominet.

Continue reading...

 

[Ben Thomas]

At this point, we don't care what they've got to say. We're committed to change and change is what we'll get.

 

[Siusaidh]

"We want to hear from you..."

Members: 'We want new Directors instead of you. You have lost our trust."

So, no, I don't think you DO want to hear. That's why you closed the members' forum - because you didn't want to hear some of the views being raised.

"...Before we settle on the structure for the Council."

Except the members did not ask for this Council. They don't want an 'advisory' council, which can be controlled and manipulated. That's what happened at ICANN which you are saying you are modeling it on: there was a lively, independent and democratic users' group, which operated on its own terms in juxtaposition to ICANN with independent viewpoints and criticisms. ICANN saw this 'At Large' movement as a threat to the direction it wanted to go, so it created ALAC, inside its operation, with delegates instead of direct user elections for each position, then made ALAC just one of many 'advisory' elements in ICANN's structure - even financially rewarded those ALAC representatives, but actually it was a way of getting the user voice 'under control'. It's a classic trap. ICANN has done it all before, and you even admit you're borrowing it from ICANN's playlist.

Had you not noticed? The members who have expressed anything - 290 of them so far, not just 1 or 2 'malcontents' - aren't focussed on this Council, which they didn't ask for, they are asking for your removal and replacement with people they trust. That's members' prerogative. The EGM will decide if it's the members' will, and if it is, then a whole new leadership is coming, and THEN a discussion can begin about future structures, not now when you're on the point of leaving (being removed).

Once again, this is a desperate Board, trying to save their (frankly exorbitant) salaries, suddenly promising whatever it takes to save their position (and a legacy of failed engagement), to give them time to lock down future opposition, and carry on in the direction people don't want it to go.

"We will soon be setting out how nominations and elections for the RAC will work, leading up to a launch in June."

But you won't be here in June. You're just not listening to what members are now saying.

The issue is not some 'Council', the issue is new leadership. You say "We want to hear from you." That's what we're saying.

All the rest is too little too late. Members no longer trust the current leadership, and specifically the direction Russell has driven the company in.

"We’re keen for your suggestions and ideas."

No you're really not. You're in denial. Because you don't want to hear what we are telling you. The EGM is not a 'suggestion'. It is a directive.

 

[Siusaidh]

Resolution 1 will go ahead whatever. Screw legal delays. Then if the remnant Board don't comply with the membership and appoint Sir Michael and Axel, most of them will be gone too.

They ought to understand that.

'Death concentrates the mind.'

Speaking metaphorically of course, but to be clear, a member's directive must be complied with, because the same members can easily serve notice of a follow-up resolution if not.

Meanwhile, time for those named in Resolution 1 to face reality. No confidence. Trust gone. Promises don't cut it after so many years. It's just too late for that.

A new direction requires a new team to guarantee it happens.

 

[xdnet]

While I'm not on it at the moment, the RRsG at least set its own articles, ran its own budget under control of the members and has veto power over contract changes.

If they're going to do it, should at least commit a grant of £xxK to Nominet Members CIC or similar, and let members step up and organise, with veto power over contract and .UK policy changes.

 

[Ben Thomas]

While I'm not on it at the moment, the RRsG at least set its own articles, ran its own budget under control of the members and has veto power over contract changes.

If they're going to do it, should at least commit a grant of £xxK to Nominet Members CIC or similar, and let members step up and organise, with veto power over contract and .UK policy changes.

Nice idea, but that would actually involve them letting go of the money