Nominet EGM ... results in

[bb99]

... and the membership voted "no"! Hardly a surprise.

However, it was quite interesting that only 10% of the membership actually voted.

Still, onwards and upwards

 

[rob]

Good work

 

[Whois-Search]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nominet UK
Sent: 16 March 2006 10:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [nom-announce] EGM outcome

Following the Board's strategic and governance review of Nominet, we
proposed a number of changes to our corporate governance and company
statutes. We felt that the changes we proposed would better equip us for the
future and help us to maintain and build on our many successes. In order for
us to make these changes we needed your agreement to revise our memorandum
and articles of association.

The Board is disappointed to advise you that we did not receive the level of
support required to pass the changes and this was announced at today's EGM.

We were also very disappointed to find that only 10% of the membership
voted.

The outcome of today's vote does not mean that we will stand still. It does
mean we need to listen carefully to the feedback we have received and give
further thought to the changes we want to make. One of the criticisms put
forward was that we did not give members enough time to consider the changes
and there was no formal consultation process inviting your input.
We feel that these are criticisms that can be addressed as part of a
dialogue with you about the way forward from here.

Looking forward we are confident that we will be able to arrive at a
compromise that addresses the concerns that some of you have raised but that
will also allow Nominet to develop and grow as a company. Further
announcements will follow in due course.

 

[Beasty]

Very interesting. And well done Hazel Pegg et al.

Could someone better informed please fill me in - on another thread it was said that a handful of members (the ISPs with most registrations, like Pipex) held a significant share of the votes under the weighted voting system - if I understood it properly each having 10%. Does the low turnout mean that none of those voters voted?

 

[bb99]

Does the low turnout mean that none of those voters voted?

I'm guessing here, but I believe that Nominet are saying that only 10% of members (by number voted). So if there's 500 members, only 50 voted. I don't think it takes into account the weighting etc that is used to work out votes.

 

[domaingenius]

I'm guessing here, but I believe that Nominet are saying that only 10% of members (by number voted). So if there's 500 members, only 50 voted. I don't think it takes into account the weighting etc that is used to work out votes.

I think there are 3,000 + members but correct me if I am wrong

DG

 

[bb99]

I think there are 3,000 + members but correct me if I am wrong

DG

Close - 2,851

http://www.nominet.org.uk/intelligence/statistics/member/

 

[retired_member11]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nominet UK
Sent: 16 March 2006 10:43 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [nom-announce] EGM outcome

Following the Board's strategic and governance review of Nominet, we
proposed a number of changes to our corporate governance and company
statutes. We felt that the changes we proposed would better equip us for the
future and help us to maintain and build on our many successes. In order for
us to make these changes we needed your agreement to revise our memorandum
and articles of association.

The Board is disappointed to advise you that we did not receive the level of
support required to pass the changes and this was announced at today's EGM.

We were also very disappointed to find that only 10% of the membership
voted.

The outcome of today's vote does not mean that we will stand still. It does
mean we need to listen carefully to the feedback we have received and give
further thought to the changes we want to make. One of the criticisms put
forward was that we did not give members enough time to consider the changes
and there was no formal consultation process inviting your input.
We feel that these are criticisms that can be addressed as part of a
dialogue with you about the way forward from here.

Looking forward we are confident that we will be able to arrive at a
compromise that addresses the concerns that some of you have raised but that
will also allow Nominet to develop and grow as a company. Further
announcements will follow in due course.

What is Nominet, the members or the management? The members have spoken and yet the management won't have it. Now I can more clearly see why a corporate lawyer may have been appointed as the new CEO.

 

[Nigel]

Nominet say: 'Looking forward we are confident that we will be able to arrive at a compromise that addresses the concerns that some of you have raised but that will also allow Nominet to develop and grow as a company. Further announcements will follow in due course'

The vote is cast - yet Nominet talk about arriving at a 'compromise' - they also talk about wanting Nominet to 'develop and grow as a company' instead of the non profit organisation that they are supposed to be.

 

[bb99]

they also talk about wanting Nominet to 'develop and grow as a company' instead of the non profit organisation that they are supposed to be.

Nominet are, technically speaking, a company. They're also a not for profit organisation. :???:

 

[domaingenius]

What is Nominet, the members or the management? The members have spoken and yet the management won't have it. Now I can more clearly see why a corporate lawyer may have been appointed as the new CEO.

It is blatantly obvious that what he/the Chairman ,wants to do is take Nominet public. Now thats all well and good BUT,and its a big but, he knows that with so many members involved it would not leave much of the cake for him and the top hierachy to share. You really think they want to share the cake like jesus shared the bread, no way !. Im not saying that going public is wrong, but only if all the members are involved and get their fair share, not see 90% go to top few and the crumbs to the members.

DG

 

[Beasty]

It is blatantly obvious that what he/the Chairman ,wants to do is take Nominet public. Now thats all well and good BUT,and its a big but, he knows that with so many members involved it would not leave much of the cake for him and the top hierachy to share. You really think they want to share the cake like jesus shared the bread, no way !. Im not saying that going public is wrong, but only if all the members are involved and get their fair share, not see 90% go to top few and the crumbs to the members.

DG

It should go public - truly public - a government agency should do it. .uk is a national asset - not an asset belonging to those who are Nominet members - much less to the corporates who dominate the bizarre voting structure.

It could then work at a proper costs-only basis along the lines of Companies House and the Patent Office - rather than the present £6.5 million retained profit and high executive salary basis.

 

[retired member 1]

Taken from El'Reg

The extraordinary general meeting of UK registry owner Nominet this morning, which hoped to pass three restructuring resolutions, turned out to be just that - extraordinary.

Proposed changes to Nominet's Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association were designed to give the company greater freedom in the internet market. A third resolution would have altered the weighted voting system to give smaller members a greater say by capping any one member's influence.

All three resolutions put forward to members fell when two of Nominet's three largest members unexpectedly voted against them. No resolution reached even a simple majority thanks to a weighted vote system that gives disproportionate power to companies that have registered the largest number of .uk domains.

Nominet chairman Bob Gilbert told The Register he still doesn't know why both Pipex and Fasthosts voted against the moves. Neither company has been available for comment.

But the changes, devised by Gilbert, ran into trouble when members of Nominet's Policy Advisory Group claimed they over-commercialised the company.

A large number of the 30 or so members that turned up to the EGM in Oxford, were opposed to the changes and were hoping to gather the 10 percent of the vote needed to make the main resolutions fall.

However, Gilbert announced almost immediately that none of the resolutions would pass because "two of the major tag holders have voted against them" by postal vote, prior to the meeting.

Gilbert said Nominet would now discuss how to progress from here with its members.

A key reason cited for the opposition was the issue of communication with members, which Nominet board members recognised they would need to address. Members said they felt the changes were presented as a done deal rather than opened up to wider discussion.

A new set of proposals are unlikely to appear until mid-June.

Nominet's problems are greater than this, however. Only 11 percent of members actually voted, something Cowley said was very disappointing.

The problem lies in the fact that over 90 percent of Nominet's members only have one or two votes, compared to Pipex's 1,041.

The matter was further confused when Pipex's shares jumped nearly 15 per cent on Tuesday on rumours that it was subject to a takeover after a large shareholder had been bought out.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/03/16/nominet_egm_vote/

 

[Hazel Pegg]

It is blatantly obvious that what he/the Chairman ,wants to do is take Nominet public.

I haven't drawn that conclusion myself. I think that the Board have made some mistakes on the communications side of things and have been a little cavalier about applying 'off the shelf' M&As to the rather not off the shelf company that Nominet is; but I don't see them as some evil entity out to line their own pockets. I do feel that the proposals as presented left a few too many doors ajar for a less well-intentioned board to go down the road towards commercialisation but have no reason to believe that this current Board has any intention of doing that.

I left today's meeting feeling that the concerns of those Nominet members who voted NO as a result of my little campaign were being taken seriously and that there is a real possibility that a compromise can be reached that everyone can live with.

IMO there are no 'goodies and baddies'. There is just miscommunication and a certain amount of not being able to see the wood for the trees. I've had to retract a few of my initial statements so am as guilty as the next person

Meanwhile I am quietly optimistic that we will collectively get this right next time around.

Hazel

 

[Hazel Pegg]

The vote is cast - yet Nominet talk about arriving at a 'compromise'

As a Nominet member and a rather vocal critic of the proposals as presented I also wish to reach a compromise. Nominet does need to change and there will need to be some give and take..

Hazel

 

[Hazel Pegg]

It should go public - truly public - a government agency should do it. .uk is a national asset - not an asset belonging to those who are Nominet members - much less to the corporates who dominate the bizarre voting structure.

I rather foolishly sent the Times Online a comment piece which ended with a suggestion that faced with the choice between outright commercialisation and the Govt running the show I might be tempted to opt for the latter. The predictable headline was along the lines of 'let govt run internet.co.uk'.


But that would be a last resort and I am not yet suggesting that we have reached the stage where that is an option that should be seriously considered. Having seen what 'govt dept' + 'anything to do with technology' has produced to date I have reservations about their competence to run the .uk registry.

Hazel

 

[sneezycheese]

Nominet does need to change

Simple question seeing as Nominet is making a good profit and it's books are well and truely in the black - WHY???

...and in what way do you think it needs to change?

 

[sneezycheese]

Having seen what 'govt dept' + 'anything to do with technology' has produced to date I have reservations about their competence to run the .uk registry.

Hazel this is rather a foolish statement and shows ineptitude of your understanding of the complexity of the majority of government systems. Just look at the running of Companies House for god’s sake! I would hazard a guess that you have never seen in reality what the UK’s Government involvement and their agencies with technology has really produced, apart from those headline grabbers that have been published in the press (and we all know to take what we read there with a pinch of salt). As an ex Government Employee within an organisation that required security clearance to the highest level in this land, I can tell you that I would rather trust one of their technology projects over any commercial entity any day of the week!

I’m sorry Hazel, but do you really think that running the UK domain registry is so difficult?

 

[Hazel Pegg]

Hazel this is rather a foolish statement and shows ineptitude of your understanding of the complexity of the majority of government systems. Just look at the running of Companies House for god’s sake!

Fair point. During office hours their site does seem to efficiently produce the info I am seeking.

I'm too tired now to address your other comments but will be back tomorrow after a good night's sleep and a serious caffeine hit.

Hazel

 

[njf]

Hazel - Thanks for all the explaining + time over the last few weeks, and doing the proxy business at the EGM on behalf of (presumably) quite a few of us.

All - Nom-steer had these figures for the votes which I was wondering about - you maybe interested in them too - Nick.

"> Does anyone have figures (exact or approximate) on the number/percentage of
> votes for and against?

Resolution 1: 2360 for, 2538 against.
Resolution 2: 2352 for, 2546 against.
Resolution 3: 2437 for, 2451 against.

The electorate is 10432 votes. "