Scrutiny? We've heard of it. Dot-UK supremo Nominet goes dark

[Whois-Search]

Kieren McCarthy article on the latest Nominet shenanigans:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/17/uks_internet_operator_nominet_goes_dark/

Note: I'm the critic mentioned in the article

Perhaps @invincible could make some notes at the next board meeting?

 

[martin-s]

Is there any link between you and David, Andrew? I know you proposed him originally, and from memory some of your whois points to the same Road Town address?

 

[Whois-Search]

Is there any link between you and David, Andrew? I know you proposed him originally, and from memory some of your whois points to the same Road Town address?

Name Account Inc has a "customer" relationship with Netistrar Ltd

And we are currently moving names from Enom.com to Netistrar.com since Tucows have ruined Enom (hence the Whois).

Apart from that no hes not my type ;-)

 

[gimpydog]

Hmmm. You reap what you sow.

 

[Whois-Search]

Hmmm. You reap what you sow.

Actually I think he's doing a good job to be honest and at least engaging on here. You might not agree with him but at least you can speak to him and see his point of view.

It's not easy being on the Nominet board when the elected members are far outnumbered by the appointed. The decision to change the board report (according to Volker on the Nominet forum) was made by the new chairman not them.

Therefore it wasn't David's decision to change it and he most likely found out about it along with the rest of us?

I think you guys on here should actually consider the implications of being on the board and what that involves.

 

[RobM]

Elected members are a 'token' to shut up people who disagree with nominet's push for profits to give themselves massive pay rises and first class tickets on the gravy train whilst making lots more money for their vested interests where they don't have to hide their fortune. It can't be changed but don't think you have any choice in anything they decide. To be fair, even if he wanted to, David can't do anything - he's irrelevant. It's the self-delusion and arrogance that becomes so annoying.

 

[gimpydog]

Actually I think he's doing a good job

Is there any evidence of that? Perhaps his challenges to the executive have been minuted?

Would you also include his work on the remuneration committee, of which The Register is so critical?

"the pay of Senior Management is set by a committee which has no personal interest in the outcome of its decision and which gives due regard to the interests of the public and of the financial health of the Company."?

http://nominet-prod.s3.amazonaws.co...16/08/Terms-of-Reference-Rem-Com-Nov-2015.pdf

How is it in the public interest to grossly inflate salaries which are funded by registration fees?

 

[Whois-Search]

Is there any evidence of that? Perhaps his challenges to the executive have been minuted?

As the article says there were no minutes to start with just a communique - now we don't even have that just a short "update".

At the end of the day the Nominet board may disagree internally about things but on the outside they have to show a united front.

I accept that but it doesn't mean people like David, Denesh, Volker are not challenging the status quo internally. I believe they are but most of the decisions are made by the executive.

Would you also include his work on the remuneration committee, of which The Register is so critical?

How is it in the public interest to grossly inflate salaries which are funded by registration fees?

If you watch the AGM video you can see I had it out with the chair over remuneration.

I wanted to know why the CTO was getting a 2% bonus on new business billings and why three executives are now paid £1 million between them.

Her reply was simply "if you want good people you have to pay good money"

Now I can imagine the remuneration committee has external advice on benchmarking pay etc however I find the bonus schemes in particular very unsavoury and I've told them so at the AGM.

If a NED sits on the remuneration committee & is later 'rewarded' by the executive (whose pay they have set) with a plum job at the Nominet Trust, for example, might that be construed as a 'personal interest'?

If you are referring to Nora and Seb who are now Nominet Trust trustees:
https://www.nominettrust.org.uk/who-we-are/trustees

Then while I can clearly see the nepotism...

As far as I know those positions are unpaid and they are only paid EXPENSES to go to meetings.

The NEDs at Nominet are also paid a fixed amount around £1000 a day >£35,000 a year.

 

[RobM]

I don't think you mean 1000 per day - maybe 100 That kind of pay is reserved for the hardworking top board members.

 

[Whois-Search]

I don't think you mean 1000 per day - maybe 100 That kind of pay is reserved for the hardworking top board members.

It says in the candidate pack:

In addition, directors are expected to attend induction sessions, committee meetings (there are several Board committees), strategy away days and other official events. The minimum time commitment is 30 days each year. The non-executive fee is £32k per annum and is reviewed annually in line with our overall remuneration policy

I make £32,000 / 30 days = £1066.66 per day

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/.../02/20162512/2017-Election-Candidate-Pack.pdf

Also...

Directors remuneration is on page 42 (44 of the PDF) of the annual report:

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/...0/Nominet-2016-Annual-Report-and-Accounts.pdf

Last year the non-exeutive directors got £31,000 to £34,000 each

The appointed NEDs get a few grand more for chairing the sub-committees

 

[RobM]

32k per annum.... annum = per year not 30 days
32,000/365 is not close to 1000 per day

 

[armistice]

@RobM The minimum time commitment is 30 days each year.

 

[RobM]

Am I going mad here? 'The non-executive fee is £32k per annum' That's 32,000/365. If you see a job advertised at 32k per annum that's what it means. £87 per day.
Do you seriously think that a NED gets £365,000 per year?! It's irrelevant how little or much time someone puts into a job - that is it's 'official' wage. I see what you're both saying and, although it is money for doing bugger all basically, there are plenty of jobs like that. You are still not classified for the amount of time you put in.

 

[armistice]

I think your missing the fact that its not a full time job, its only 30 days per year.

 

[Whois-Search]

Am I going mad here? 'The non-executive fee is £32k per annum' That's 32,000/365. If you see a job advertised at 32k per annum that's what it means. £87 per day.
Do you seriously think that a NED gets £365,000 per year?! It's irrelevant how little or much time someone puts into a job - that is it's 'official' wage.

Yes. However they only have board meetings once every two months and you only have to attend those, sub-committee meetings and a few events like AGMs.

Last time I checked @invincible wasnt glued to a desk at Nominet towers ... he might go to Nominet once every two months.

 

[RobM]

Yes but there are plenty of reasons to dislike nominet and it's token NEDs that are not based only on semantics. The job is advertised at 32k per annum. It will be declared to the taxman at 32k per annum. Therefore saying the person taking that job gets 1000 per day - it's twisting the fact. He/she doesn't. They may do 2 months work - does that mean suddenly the job is paying 500 per day? It's a farce anyway but that's my point. It is not advertised 'per hour' nor I suspect declared as such because the tax would be horrendous for both employer and employee.
Now whether a NED is worth that is a different matter (to which everyone except David and Kelly no doubt have a different opinion on).
*edit I meant horrendous NI for employer and tax for employee but you got my gist.

 

[gimpydog]

At the end of the day the Nominet board may disagree internally about things but on the outside they have to show a united front.

Isn't that a little contradictory? You supported The Register's demand for more transparency. Collective responsibility should not be an excuse for obfuscation.
People were encouraged by you to elect someone to the board in the belief that they had shared beliefs or a mutual agenda.

 

[Whois-Search]

Isn't that a little contradictory? You supported The Register's demand for more transparency. Collective responsibility should not be an excuse for obfuscation.

Actually I tweeted Reports.org.uk first before that article was even written. I suspect Kieren McCarthy is following me on twitter and wrote the story off the back of those tweets?

While I'm all in favour of more detailed board reports I accept that directors often reach a 'consensus' before making a decision and going public.

The previous communique was a summary of decisions made. No doubt the board report was even checked by Nominets solicitors before it was published and the PR company would be briefed - that's how companies work.

However if you ask David what he thinks he will tell you.

People were encouraged by you to elect someone to the board in the belief that they had shared beliefs or a mutual agenda.

I proposed David for the election two years ago based on knowing him for over 15 years.

The reasons I proposed him were in the election statement at the time. The statements I made on this forum I still believe to be true.

Now while we can disagree over the slightest thing in these threads ...I wouldn't go as far as going back on the statements I made at the time.

 

[Nigel]

I wonder if this greater secrecy may have something to do with nominet's investment in the ntlds and the repercussions that might follow. It seems to me that there has been a real lack of transparency from nominet in how the ntlds have been funded, their performance, competition law issues etc. I can see it suiting nominet executives in not having to have minutes published that discuss these issues. TheRegister published a very informative article last year entitled The Great British domain rip-off: Overcharged .uk customers help pay for cheaper .vodka

Ntldstats.com have detailed graphs and stats on nominet backend operations in the ntlds. I don't think they make good reading. I've also read that nominet are charging out just $1 a domain to the registries for their backend functions. Nominet argue that servicing these ntlds costs less than their .uk portfolio but when you see extensions like .horse with just 2250 domains (down from a peak of over 4000 - see graph below) and .vodka with just 1500 domains (down from a peak of over 3000) those extensions must be costing far more than $1 a domain to nominet. Even their flagship .blog was expected, according to nominet, to reach 250,000 domains by 2016 has only reached 114,000 domains today.

My worry is that the more Nominet spend on this great white elephant - the more they'll look to the only profitable part of their operation - .uk domains - to pay the price - by increasing fees again. In my opinion, it's no co-incidence that .uk reg fees increased by 50% just prior to this foray and that executive pay also soared at the same time.

If any acorn members have detailed financial insight into the ntlds, costings, competition isssues I'd be pleased to hear. Has Nominet ever released any detailed costings? They ought to - after all we're all paying for this.

 

[Nigel]

Thanks for your reply - I meant to say registries and have edited my original post. If you could post any useful info here that would be great.