Lyons report finally published!

[martin-s]

Report in full here:

http://www.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Sir-Michael-Lyons-Report-2016.pdf

Board response here:

http://www.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/MLR-Board-Response-.pdf

Nominet member forum thread here:

https://forum.nominet.org.uk/showthread.php?t=762

 

[Edwin]

Thanks. Lots of reading ahead, clearly!

 

[Edwin]

Sir Michael Lyons tells .uk registry Nominet: Time to grow up
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/05/michael_lyons_tells_nominet_grow_up/

Some great material in the article, and the last couple of paragraphs in the end resonated strongly with me.

Sir Michael Lyons should be congratulated for doing a difficult job, gaining swift insights and having the courage to use his report to tell the Nominet Board what it needs to hear rather than what it wants to.

Based on the Board's response, however – something it has taken three months to put together – it still isn't listening and still thinks it's always right. Lyons now knows exactly what it feels like to be a Nominet member.

Of course, Nominet are going to take no more notice of this article than they will of consultation responses that didn't suit their party line, or of the report itself. It's baffling how tone-deaf they are, but that's where things stand...

 

[Kari]

I find it funny that anyone actually thought the report would make Nominet change their ways

Perfect example of heads up backsides lol

 

[Paullas]

I find it funny that anyone actually thought the report would make Nominet change their ways

Perfect example of heads up backsides lol

Totally agree, Nominets board have to big of an ego to listen to what is right and needs to be changed. Its like being back 4-5 year ago and now we are back to square 1.

 

[RobM]

It's not ego. It's money.

 

[Paullas]

It's not ego. It's money.

True and that aswel.

 

[anthony]

It's not ego. It's money.

Ane its Easy Street work too.

 

[spiderspider]

I've only skim read the report and noms response. I think most of it goes like this:

Report: You really should be doing this.....

Response: Well, we're doing it how we always have, and thats ok with us. We don't need to do what you have recommended as we're bloody fantastic, and know much better than any report that we have commissioned, so completed and closed for that recommendation.


Did anyone else expect to see under member engagement something like 'We have a NED who bangs our drum on the domain forums for us'?

 

[RobM]

Personally I'd fire the lot of them. Replace them at a fair wage for the job. No bonuses. No way to skim the pot under the radar. Then if they are no good... fire them... get someone else. That's how it works in a NON PROFIT COMPANY. These people are all just pigs at a trough and it's blatently apparent who they are screwing to continue stuffing their faces. (fully expecting one of the wannabes now to leap to their defence).

 

[Edwin]

The real problem is that Nominet is plainly dissatisfied with doing the one thing it's supposed to do.

You could argue that's because it's safe, boring, repetitive. Not challenging enough to keep the most highly skilled staff. There are a lot of arguments to be made, and many of them have some degree of validity.

But at the end of the day none of them matter so long as Nominet is able to keep a core skillset to keep the UK namespace running safely, reliably and securely.

They could probably achieve that with 1/2 to 2/3 of the current staff and budget (basically rewinding the clock 4-5 years).

Of course they'd be a "stagnant" organisation with little or no growth, but that ought to be OK because they'd be still fulfilling their purpose to perfection.

The fact that it's not enough for them is where things start to come off the rails.

 

[RobM]

A person serving a burger at McDonald's has one purpose - to serve you food. If he doesn't want to serve food for a living he finds another job. This logic should apply to nominet. However to be the same I guess the story should be:
A person serves a burger at a restaurant (provided for him to work in). He has not invested a single penny to set up the company. He earns 10 times the wage of anyone else serving a burger. He also thinks that extra money should be used to sell shoes in the same restaurant. If nobody buys the shoes he continues to receive the same money. Some people who order burgers no longer get a burger to a reasonable standard and don't care about shoes. However there is nowhere else that *might* give them a burger so he decides to double the price (hoping that he can start earning 20 times the wage of anyone else). Somehow the server believes he should decide who does and doesn't get one and what other things to serve at this restaurant. The solution? Kick his backside out. He is nothing special to justify his money and clearly knows nothing as well as obviously not caring about his customer. It is not HIS restaurant and there are plenty of people who could replace him. This benefits the consumer as there is no money to be passed onto anyone else so the restaurant doesn't NEED to make extra money. Burgers are priced to cover the cost of ingredients, the staff (who work for the going rate), and overheads.

 

[ian]

A person serves a burger at a restaurant (provided for him to work in). He has not invested a single penny to set up the company. He earns 10 times the wage of anyone else serving a burger. He also thinks that extra money should be used to sell shoes in the same restaurant. If nobody buys the shoes he continues to receive the same money. Some people who order burgers no longer get a burger to a reasonable standard and don't care about shoes. However there is nowhere else that *might* give them a burger so he decides to double the price (hoping that he can start earning 20 times the wage of anyone else). Somehow the server believes he should decide who does and doesn't get one and what other things to serve at this restaurant. The solution? Kick his backside out. He is nothing special to justify his money and clearly knows nothing as well as obviously not caring about his customer. It is not HIS restaurant and there are plenty of people who could replace him. This benefits the consumer as there is no money to be passed onto anyone else so the restaurant doesn't NEED to make extra money. Burgers are priced to cover the cost of ingredients, the staff (who work for the going rate), and overheads.

Imagines David flipping burgers with great delight

 

[Kari]

Personally I'd fire the lot of them. Replace them at a fair wage for the job. No bonuses. No way to skim the pot under the radar. Then if they are no good... fire them... get someone else. That's how it works in a NON PROFIT COMPANY. These people are all just pigs at a trough and it's blatently apparent who they are screwing to continue stuffing their faces. (fully expecting one of the wannabes now to leap to their defence).

Agreed

 

[Stephen]

Please answer your own question

Since you're posting about it, Paul, in your opinion what specifically in the Lyons report is it that the Board is not listening to that you believe is right and needs to be changed?

Why don't you answer your own question.

What do you think the Board is not listening to etc. and what do you believe needs to be changed?

Stephen

 

[Edwin]

WARNING: David's up to his tricks again. Be aware. Don't get sucked into responding to him rather than the point of the thread, and don't let him derail this one! Just ignore him. Otherwise it's just another dead thread he's killed...

(This needs no response otherwise I've done the same thing.)

 

[Stephen]

100% ignored and trampled over their concerns

Change what ways exactly, MVO? Members should be seeing much more member engagement as a result fairly soon, for example. I'm looking forward to that. .

.. sadly too late me as Nominet has simply ignored and obstructed every effort to engage and simply I have had enough.

Nominet is on such a course and has such an attitude of knowing best and does not seek, want any other viewpoints.

Nominet was provided with a list of members sufficient to call an EGM about pricing and it has 100% ignored and trampled over their concerns.

Even if Nominet ticks some boxes and holds a few meetings and sets up a special email address, I feel it is now futile to engage with Nominet and to get real engagement it is not the opportunity of communication it is requires the members to spend their own time and to do that they need to feel it is worth the effort.

Stephen

 

[Edwin]

.

 

[Stephen]

fit for purpose?

I can't see how this can be true. You yourself, with others, had a meeting with the CEO and a registrar conference was put together at fairly short notice which you and many others attended. Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend.

So you don't know what was said?

Yes appreciate the meeting and hope Nominet appreciate the days time I and others spend attending the Oxford meeting.

But basically the conclusion was for Nominet to seek views of suggestions on how to deal with the price increase, and look into the matters. Result no effort was made to find any changes, it was simply running down the clock by Nominet.

It does seek viewpoints but seeking viewpoints and considering them doesn't always translate into implementing those specific viewpoints to any particular degree for a great many reasons specific to particular viewpoints.

Nominet has still not learnt the lesson of 2 consultations on .uk.

It does not know best and should seek and listen to opinions of a wider audience,
than it currently engages with and include those views in its thinking.

I'm aware but no EGM was called for.

Posted on Nominet forum https://forum.nominet.org.uk/showthread.php?t=712

Posted on Acorn http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/nominet-general-information/137114-egm-uk-please-sign-petition-against-nominets-50-price-rise.html

You may want to check with Nominet legal and the moral obligation to disclose the list provided to Nominet to the Board.

It was also recorded in the January Nominet registrar meeting that Nominet received a EGM request from more than 5% of the membership on 15th December.

Simply saying it was only 5% of vested interest and trouble makers with the wrong answer, is not a stance I want to see Nominet making but that is what you and Nominet has chosen to do.

You may feel Nominet has dodged a bullet by ignoring the call for an EGM but Nominet may find that it's "fit for purpose" is in jeopardy the way you and the Board have hidden from the reality of real governance.

Could it not be considered that your argument appears to be that if Nominet don't take on board your beliefs and then implement steps to adopt them, engagement has not occurred? Surely engagement doesn't necessarily mean actively adhering to everything suggested and in the way suggested?

No, neither I or anybody else has the answers.

There are vested interests and there are points to both sides on any decision.

Nominet does not seem to understand when a portfolio holders makes a view as member, it is far more reflective (although not all the time) of all the 7,000,000 registrants than the top 20 registrars.

I know I have clocked up over 1,000 hours on Nominet governance matters in the last few years
and have found Nominet are getting further away from a not for profit organization concerned with the UK namespace.

If I could see;

Nominet taking on board anybody's views

Transparency from Nominet

Taking the Lyons report seriously​

then I would believe Nominet is acting on behalf of the UK namespace
and has rediscovered its core purpose
and not for profit ethos
and that is the guardian of a national asset.

Sadly I do not see Nominet doing those things.

Stephen

 

[Paullas]

Since you're posting about it, Paul, in your opinion what specifically in the Lyons report is it that the Board is not listening to that you believe is right and needs to be changed?

My opinion wont count as if Nominet are not going to listen to the more experienced people like Edwin, Stephen, Andrew who know the Industry inside out they are certainly not going to bat an eyelid what i think or say so i am not going to post public my opinion.