Big problem: Nominet members won't know how many votes they're casting in decision to oust CEO, chair
- Reference: 1616069110
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/03/18/nominet_voting_fears/
- Source link:
In a call on Wednesday, just two working days before Monday’s [1]crunch vote by members on the fate of the board, Nominet’s company secretary Rory Kelly told Krystal CEO Simon Blackler, who has led the [2]PublicBenefit.uk campaign against the current management, that Nominet will not provide members a list of their voting rights – the number of votes they will each cast.
[3]
For those who don't know, Nominet members are each assigned a number of votes calculated
[4]PDF
from the number of paid-for domain names they each have on the books and the total number of domains registered. So, if you're a Nominet member and you're assigned 6,502 votes, that's how many you'll cast when voting on the upcoming [5]EGM resolution to cull the board..UK overlord Nominet tells everyone not to worry about 'distorted' vote allocations in its board elections [6]READ MORE
[7]
We understand Kelly told Blackler that Nominet will only provide these rights alongside the results, though, prompting Blackler to ask how Nominet could justify telling its members how many votes they were each casting only after the vote had been concluded. Kelly said the delay was due to Nominet checking the tabulations were correct.
There is no good reason for the delay, and in the past Nominet has always provided voting rights details before any vote, usually a month in advance. Thanks to the complex voting system run by the organisation, the number of votes held by each of its 2,500 members vary significantly, and are calculated in advance then published before any vote to provide transparency and accountability.
The issue is of such significance that the PublicBenefit.uk team has sent several letters to Nominet’s board over the past month asking for clarity on the issue, and one member has lodged a formal complaint against the organisation after his requests for the same information were repeatedly ignored. That member, Andrew Bennett, was also informed on Wednesday that the board will only address his complaint after the extraordinary general meeting (EGM).
The issue is not academic: in 2020, Bennett discovered Nominet had wrongly calculated voting rights for the two prior years, giving a disproportionately large number of votes to its largest members. Those members are expected to vote in favor of keeping the CEO, chair, and three other board members in place.
Damn statistics
While most Nominet members receive an average of 5,000 votes each to cast in board elections, in 2019, the largest registrar, GoDaddy, was given 5.2 million; a figure that was reduced to 3.6 million after Bennett noticed the discrepancy and complained. At the time, Nominet [8]snubbed demands for an investigation, and said only that “the error had its origin in the treatment of multiple part-payments for domains… as a result of a coding change.” It also said the miscalculation had no effect on the outcome of the board elections due to other rules in place.
At the EGM next week, an individual member’s vote will be capped at three per cent but taken across the entire membership, a similar miscalculation could easily result in a yes result turning into a no – especially if one was, say, able to adjust the figures after the event.
In the phone call on Wednesday, we understand Kelly said he did not know the date on which the company had decided to tabulate the voting rights, though as company secretary, he really ought to know.
Three-quarters of the votes allocated to individual members are calculated by the number of .uk domain names each member holds at a specific time. Those numbers vary significantly day-to-day in a registry in which there are just under 11 million names, most of which are renewed every year.
The number of domain names held by each member at any given time are contained within a constantly updated database. Since running that database is Nominet’s entire core function, it would be fairly easy for the organisation to create a program that ran final voting tallies against the domains database again and again over time, selecting a day in which Nominet received the highest possible number of votes in its favor from those members who backed it. Nominet could then claim after the fact that that was the day it had decided to tabulate voting rights.
In other words, Nominet could pick a moment in time when the registrars that voted against the sacking of the CEO and board chairman have sufficient votes to cast to block that resolution.
[9]Desperate Nominet chairman claims member vote to fire him would spark British government intervention
[10]As battle for future of .UK's Nominet draws closer, non-exec director hits a nerve with for-profit proposal
[11]Pressure builds on Nominet as members demand to know leadership's contingency plans for when they’re fired
[12]Nominet claims effort to replace its board with 'safe hands' is invalid, refuses to put it to member vote
[13]Nominet vows to freeze wages and prices, boost donations, and be more open. For many members, it’s too little, too late
[14]Faced with the sack, Nominet CEO half-apologizes for taking the 'wrong tone,' asks angry members to hear him out
[15]Nominet boardroom battle may already be over as campaign to oust management hits critical milestone
[16]Nominet faces showdown with British internet industry: Extraordinary vote called to oust CEO, board members
It’s difficult to know what the effective shift in votes of one day over another would be but Nominet would have a full month to pick from and with the vote expected to be tight – the [17]resolution requiring 50 per cent of cast votes to pass – even just a few percentage points could see Nominet CEO Russell Haworth and chairman Mark Wood retain their highly paid jobs rather than be unceremoniously booted from the organisation the next day.
That's not to say this manipulation will happen or there's a suggestion this will happen; it's that there is a concern that Nominet has created a situation in which it could be possible due to its lack of transparency.
Nominet has also told members that it will only provide the results two hours after the EGM has ended. “Our election scrutineer Civica requires two hours to count the votes, due to the complexity of the voting and the record turnout,” it said in an announcement of the EGM on Wednesday.
“Therefore, the meeting will be concluded once voting closes. The results of the vote will be announced via Twitter, the Nominet website, and an email to members when the count is complete.”
Control mechanisms
That’s not all, however.
Nominet is also expected to use its control of the EGM, and the fact that it cannot be convened in person due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, to skew the process in its favor, it is feared.
Blackler said he was asked to provide a three-minute video outlining his case to members that would then be played during the EGM, with Nominet also providing a three-minute video from one of its non-executive directors arguing against the resolution.
The upshot of that approach, however, was that Blackler was told he would not be able to appear live during the EGM itself. When Blackler made it clear that he wanted to deliver his arguments and potentially answer member questions live, we understand Kelly told him Nominet may not be able to do so because of technical limitations.
Nominet shakes up system for expiring .uk domains, just happens to choose one that will make it £millions. Again [18]READ MORE
Not only that, Nominet also intends to limit the amount of time available to members to ask questions – Kelly would not be pinned down on the exact amount of time, we understand – and the company secretary said Nominet would prioritize written questions that had been sent in advance.
That approach is a time-honored tactic used by companies to avoid difficult or challenging questions: a moderator can claim to have received a wide range of questions that they ask corporate representatives – invariably softball questions – before saying they have run out of time and so cannot get to the tougher ones. It is a system that Register reporters run into on an almost weekly basis.
When told in clear terms by Blackler that he wished to speak live at the EGM and be in a position to ask any questions posed by members over the reason for bringing the EGM, Kelly told him he would take his request back to Nominet’s chairman and ask for clarification.
We have asked Nominet to respond to this version of events that we understand occurred between its company secretary and PublicBenefit.uk’s Simon Blackler, and will update this story if it responds. ®
Updated to add
A Nominet spokesperson has confirmed to us that Blackler will not be allowed to speak live at Monday's meeting and answer questions from the community.
"We released the agenda yesterday," Nominet said in a statement.
"We have set out the running order so that both the petitioner and the company make their case in the same way, for the same duration, before a Q&A session. The offer remains open to Mr Blackler. The company secretary has shared the petitioner’s request with the Board.”
[19]
Blackler declined to provide a recorded presentation.
Get our [20]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/02/nominet_board_vote/
[2] https://publicbenefit.uk/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YFOHLG-Lq7ns@bD13kq5MwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://media.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/58367_votingrightspolicy17052012.pdf
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/nominet_egm_vote/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/17/dot_uk_nominet_elections/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YFOHLG-Lq7ns@bD13kq5MwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/09/17/dot_uk_nominet_elections/
[9] http://www.theregister.com/2021/03/16/nominet_government_intervention/
[10] http://www.theregister.com/2021/03/10/nominet_registry_vote/
[11] http://www.theregister.com/2021/03/02/nominet_board_vote/
[12] http://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/nominet_vote_lawsuit/
[13] http://www.theregister.com/2021/02/11/nominet_board_offer/
[14] http://www.theregister.com/2021/02/09/nominet_ceo_appeal/
[15] http://www.theregister.com/2021/02/02/nominet_board_battle/
[16] http://www.theregister.com/2021/01/31/nominet_board_vote/
[17] https://publicbenefit.uk/#plan
[18] https://www.theregister.com/2020/07/22/nominet_uk_addresses/
[19] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/networks&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YFOHLG-Lq7ns@bD13kq5MwAAAEE&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[20] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Moving the goalposts
@ Victor Ludorum : The goalposts are an illusion.
Clearly the prime concern of the Nominet management is to retain their jobs. One wonders if the strategy outlined in the article is actually legal, although it is interesting that the votes cast can be recounted in detail a mere 2 hours after the voting closes, but not before voting commences. Even if it is difficult to determine the number of votes due to the complexity, they could state which day's data they would use in advance so that they could not be accused of 'manipulating' the results in their favour.
I remember when Halifax changed from a building society to a bank. The number of share I received depended on my account balances on two specific days. The day before each of those dates I had taken £1000 out of the account to pay some bills, and about there days after, due to being paid, I had returned the money. But, hey I'm not paranoid.*
*(They really are out to get me.)
Personal interests well before corporate
Once ousted, their behaviour should be audited to establish if they can ever be described as "fit and proper" to hold any executive post, anywhere, ever again.
Re: Personal interests well before corporate
And if there's foul play Nominet should claw back some of those excessive bonus payments..
Re: Personal interests well before corporate
Once found to be totally untrustworthy a successful life awaits in politics
"That's not to say this manipulation will happen"
Of course not, you counldn't publish that without being liable for a libel suit.
However, given the Board's track record up to now, I'm pretty sure they are preparing everything they can to tweak the results and find "a few more votes" in their favor.
He will know the votes, opponents will not
I bet that the Nominet CEO know who has how many votes, because he will be lobbying the big voting blocks not the little fish. He doesn't want you opponents to convince those big voters to swing their way.
That's the game here I think.
Create asymmetric information advantage for himself so he knows who to lobby.
I suggest a lawsuit, really this is beyond a joke, if he cannot run a vote consistent with their normal voting practice, how can he run a company? We get that his remuneration has gotten so out of hand, its in his interests to play games like this, and the board should be ashamed for letting it get this way, but his duty^h^h^h^h LEGAL OBLIGATION, is to the company not to himself.
I don't know why....
people thought that Nominee would lose this vote. There was only one way this was ever going to go, given the opaque and corrupt nature of the board.
Breech of UK Company Law?
Sounds as if Rory Kelly doesn't understand the legal obligations of the Company Secretary; it does seem Nominet's management are looking to breech UK company law. Counting the votes is part of the normal EGM agenda, so those two hours Civica say then need are part of the EGM and have to occur before the result of the vote is formally announced to the EGM. Otherwise, the motion passes or falls on a simple show of hands.
Additionally, (might have missed this) have Nominet authorised a date on which the register is closed, they need to do this before the poll vote, which given they are already allowing members to register their votes, must have already happened...
Re: Breech of UK Company Law?
...Otherwise, the motion passes or falls on a simple show of hands.
. ..we understand Kelly told him Nominet may not be able to do so because of technical limitations...
This has shades of.. err.. another recent election. It doesn't just have to be fair, it should be seen to be fair. But also demonstrates why there's a need for hempenreform*. So Nominet's a technical function responsible for maintaining and billing for domain names. Those names need registrar tags, tied to, well, registrars so they can be billed. It's known for a while the EGM is approaching. It sounds like a simple bit of Perl to count names & tags.
It could have tabulated those and published voting rights with the EGM notice. Or even when the agenda was published. Or, there's this new fangled thing called the 'Web' that would allow tabulation and dynamic updating of a 'web page'. All that's needed is a point in time where the vote allocation is set & frozen. I guess Nominet's just being thorough and making sure voting allocations are correct at the exact moment those votes are needed. I mean recorded and counted. And like with other e-voting systems, challenging the data can be tricky, especially if it's not published.
T'other issue is agendas again. So it's an EGM, called for a specific purpose, and it's not allowing the entity that called for the EGM to speak. Or membership to ask questions. But the show of hands will prove useful. The board and large members can vote with both hands, other members votes will not be counted on account of not being present physically or virtually at the EGM.
*Old management term for applying hemp whilst conducting a root & branch review. Also part of the origin of the phrase 'Get knotted!'.
You know what will be transparent?
The angry mob breaking down your doors to drag you out, hang you from the nearest lamp post, & set your worthless arses on fire.
I'll be on the sidelines selling sausages in a bun, popcorn, camp chairs, Smores ingredients, flaming torches, buckets of pitch, & any other thing I can make a profit offering to said mob.
Signed, CMOT Dibbler.
Re: You know what will be transparent?
"...The angry mob breaking down your doors to drag you out, hang you from the nearest lamp post, & set your worthless arses on fire.
I'll be on the sidelines selling sausages in a bun, popcorn, camp chairs, Smores ingredients, flaming torches, buckets of pitch, & any other thing I can make a profit offering to said mob.
Signed, CMOT Dibbler..."
Sausages on a stick, surely??
Re: You know what will be transparent?
sausage ina bun
Ingredients of said sausage should not be made known to anyone squeamish
Wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Allegedly.
The firm of Dewey, Chetham, and Howe have been retained by the Mos Eisley Chamber of Commerce and will vigorously contest any attempt to sully the good name of Mos Eisley by attempting to link the name, description, or any other characteristics, of Mos Eisley with the current board of Nominet.
Thank you for your time. Good day.
Dewey, Chetham, and Howe
Didn't they recently successfully defend the building firm "Bodgeit & Runn"?
Tin pot dictators
I've not seen this much ballot stuffing and vote rigging since I last looked at the voting outcome in some tin pot dictatorships
Re: Tin pot dictators
I think even some tin pot dictators will be raising their eyebrows at these shenanigans. Certainly a number of them will be taking notes on how to organise a "vote".
The yes vote had better win this time,
or the incumbents will simply ensure that this can never happen again. Requiring a supermajority, perhaps, or disallowing EGMs, or something.
WTAF?
At what point does this behaviour change from "outrageous barefaced affrontery" to "criminal"?
Is the Nominet Board
taking lessons from Nicola Sturgeon?
The real story?
Perhaps the Board have previously done some "very bad" things and this is their last ditch attempt to prevent discovery. Otherwise none of their behaviour makes much sense.
Re: The real story?
It's simple greed, they wish to continue
Confucious, he (might) say...
If vote look rigged to benefit party with most to lose, then vote rigged to benefit party with most to lose.
Moving the goalposts
This is not just moving the goalposts on an almost daily basis, but Haworth et al seem to have picked up the ball, punctured it and chopped it into tiny pieces. And who knows how much they're hoping to bribe the ref with. Next they'll be [REDACTED - don't want to give them any more ideas].