Nominet ignores advice, rejects serious change despite losing CEO, chair, half its board in membership vote
- Reference: 1617257351
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/04/01/nominet_future_plans/
- Source link:
Members were expecting the board to announce the appointment of two caretaker directors to take over as chair and vice-chair after the [1]stunning upset , especially after acting chair Rob Binns made reconciliatory remarks and promised to take their concerns seriously.
[2]
On Wednesday, however, the remaining six board members [3]went the opposite direction [PDF]: they refused to appoint the proposed directors and instead put themselves in charge of a six-month process to replace the fired board members.
Adding insult to injury, management also added two internal staffers – CIO Adam Leach and Company Secretary Rory Kelly – to the board, despite members having just voted a trio of other executives – CEO Russell Haworth, registry managing director Eleanor Bradley, and CFO Ben Hill – off the board a week earlier.
[4]
It then took the extraordinary step of naming Bradley, freshly stripped of her board role, as interim CEO following Haworth's resignation.
Since the EGM result means Bradley is not legally allowed to sit on the board, Nominet has placed itself in the unusual position of having a chief executive without a seat on its top-level decision-making body.
The actions, taken without consultation or discussion, have served to highlight the exact issue that sparked the recent EGM in the first place: that those running a membership organisation continue to actively ignore many of their own members’ clearly stated wishes in favor of their own. It will again place the organisation’s board and senior management on a collision course and some members have already called for a second EGM, this time with the rest of the board ejected.
Bigger issue
The escalation was unnecessary but is the result of a fight over Nominet’s very purpose. It is just the latest in a series of showdowns between a management team that wants to use the huge revenues produced by the .uk internet registry to branch off into commercial markets, and a membership that wants Nominet to remain a non-profit focused on its core registry with excess revenue put into charitable ventures.
In previous battles, the management has won thanks to its ability to rewrite corporate documents and use the organisation’s own resources against members. But those victories have come at a significant cost in both money and trust.
Chairman, CEO of Nominet ousted as member rebellion drives .uk registry back to non-commercial roots [5]READ MORE
In the most recent EGM, Nominet again used its staff and resources against the campaign (it is estimated Nominet spent half-a-million pounds on its failed effort) but such was the level of antipathy toward its CEO – who, among other things, had shut down the members’ online forum in a fit of pique – that the vote was successful, winning 53 per cent to 47.
The Nominet board collectively opposed the campaign and some board members were openly hostile toward the campaign's goals, leading to calls for them to resign when the vote passed. There were also calls for several senior staff members – including the now interim CEO – to resign in the wake of the vote. But following a week of internal deliberations in which the Nominet board refused to discuss their plans, it appears that self-preservation has again trumped member sentiment.
If history is anything to go by, Nominet’s current board will now seek to reinforce its position. In previous years, the organisation has aggressively managed board elections to ensure that its chosen candidates win, and it has repeatedly changed member voting rights to give it the upper hand.
There is likely to be yet another aggressive election campaign later this year when two of the non-executive directors’ terms end. And with the prospect of another EGM in the offing, Nominet will almost certainly be considering another change to its current three per cent voting cap in order to increase its chances of winning a second protest vote.
Are you listening?
There is a small glimmer of hope: in its letter to members, the Nominet board expressed a seemingly genuine desire to listen to them. Binns began a three-page letter: “I feel I should begin by acknowledging the degree to which trust has broken down between many members and the organisation. Although I am relatively new to Nominet, I recognise that the root cause dates back many years. While we can’t change the past, I hope we can all consider last week’s EGM an opportunity to reset and begin rebuilding the relationship between membership and Nominet.”
He promised the board would be “as open and candid as we can,” and acknowledged that “we must show we are following through on our commitments, listening to your concerns, and, of course, acting in the best interests of the company to deliver on our obligations to the public.” He promised “an accelerated, deep listening exercise among all of our members and stakeholders to inform deliberations as we consider Nominet’s future.”
Unfortunately, however, this is not the first time around this particular roundabout. Last time, Nominet’s board emerged from a pitched battle with its members it promised much the same but failed to come through, in large part because it refused to listen to views it didn’t agree with. The fact that it ran the process through a third party, something it claimed would provide neutrality but in reality only served to prevent direct and frank discussions, was a major factor in its failure.
The time after that, Nominet hired an outside expert – former BBC Trust chair Sir Michael Lyons – to write an independent review into how to resolve tensions and move Nominet forward. It rejected his recommendations
[6]PDF
and this week Nominet has now rejected Lyons a second time: he was one of the two named caretaker directors that members said they wanted installed as chair to help Nominet navigate the post-EGM situation.Time for reflection
This time around, Nominet’s dysfunctional corporate memory has again returned to the third-party consultation exercise. “We have asked an external firm to lead this work to ensure it is independent and completed rapidly,” Binns notes in his letter.
“The exercise will include quantitative and qualitative research, which we expect will take 6-10 weeks. We will make the findings public.”
At some point, it ought to occur to the Nominet board and senior management that the cyclical member rebellions against them may be more a result of their own actions than those of a “small minority of members,” as the recently ousted CEO Haworth and current Nominet board member James Bladel have continued to insist against all available evidence.
[7]
Perhaps while serving as the guardians of the UK’s internet address space, Nominet should consider a famous phrase of one of its most celebrated statesmen. “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” said Winston Churchill. It could not be more apt. ®
Get our [8]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/22/nominet_board_sacked/
[2] 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=2YGWZvJD7j-X5PEu7IdV0pQAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://media.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Update-from-Acting-Chair-Rob-Binns-31.03.21.pdf
[4] 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=33YGWZvJD7j-X5PEu7IdV0pQAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/22/nominet_board_sacked/
[6] https://publicbenefit.uk/resources/Sir-Michael-Lyons-Report-2015.pdf
[7] 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=44YGWZvJD7j-X5PEu7IdV0pQAAAM4&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Is this an April Fool?
I was wondering what the Articles of Association have to say and whether they can be used against the board in litigation?
Re: Is this an April Fool?
It's from Kieren McCarthy who did the other related articles - so far ok. Given that he is in San Francisco, why publish it on Thu 1 Apr 2021 at 06:09 UTC when he would (probably) be deep in slumber?
Strategy 101
“The exercise will include quantitative and qualitative research, which we expect will take 6-10 weeks. We will make the findings public.”
"Unless we don't agree with them."
Never announce an investigation unless you already know the result.
Pointless empires built on clouds
It is absurd that what should be a simple administrative function, i.e. approving the list of organisations that may register domains in a TLD and the eligibility requirements, should consume so much effort and attention.
It should have been enough to set up the process 20 years ago and just run it. It could have been done by a committee of 2 or 3 people. Not all this organisational overhead and stupid drama.
Re: Pointless empires built on clouds
It’s a nice idea, but you fail to account for the fact that someone would spot the opportunity to make money from a captive market.
Re: a captive market
I don't get it; there's nothing about an 'industry' or 'member' run body that protects the public from market failure, either. The globe is littered with these non-government TLD adminstrations from the US to New Zealand that are captured or dominated by special interests.
There's nothing special about Internet domain name registrars that says they can't be regulated by a small government department, for example. It would be like saying the road rules must be in the charge of a consortium of car manufacturers; that government couldn't be trusted? At least (democratic) governments are accountable to the wider public via the ballot box.
Remind me again
On which planet do these Nominet board members live?
Re: Remind me again
Planet gravy train. Very popular with these types.
Well played.
You had me going there for a moment, I admit... although come to think of it, I wouldn't put anything past the rump of the Nominet board. This is an April Fool, right? Right?
Hand me the crisps and beer please.
Oh, this is going to be good.
Re: Hand me the crisps and beer please.
Would you like popcorn with that?
Ha!
You almost got me then I saw the date.
Drain the swamp ...
As my eyes descended through Kieren's latest update the more my eyebrows rose ... shortly thereafter my jaw joined in and descended, ultimately hitting the floor when I reached the bit about Eleanor Bradley (recently been removed from the board) now being appointed as interim CEO. Talk about waving two fingers at the membership!
I wonder if this might act as a catalyst for EGM number 2 (similar to the way the shutdown of the Nominet forum during the AGM seemed to have been the final straw last time)
Of course where money is involved those currently in control are unlikely to depart voluntarily ... I fear this may be a long slog to drain the swamp, let us hope Public Benefit are up for a further fight
Put your money where your mouth is
If you have a .uk address move it somewhere else.
Re: Put your money where your mouth is
I have 8 .uk addresses, but I don't really have much of a choice. If I want my emails and web traffic to reach me, changing them to .ie or .scot isn't going to work.
Re: Put your money where your mouth is
No, look at how your registrar voted and then move to a different registrar if need be.
April Fool?
If it isn't then it's time to invoke the Ripley Protocol.
A profound vacuum of trusted leadership, and the same rogue regime re-grouping
So we basically have the same regime as 2 weeks ago, just Russell (CEO) and Mark (Chair) not there.
I completely disagree with the delay (or ultimate obstruction) over appointing Sir Michael as Chairman and Axel as director, which were integral parts of the Public Benefit campaign, which virtually 500 members signed up for.
But to be quite clear, the personnel now on the Board (and the new interim CEO) are the personnel who had been waving through the policies of Mark and Russell - without any public contradictions - and this regime and its policies have just been massively called out at the EGM, with a huge loss of Trust and Confidence.
Does Rob’s statement today engender trust, confidence, that this isn’t just the previous regime regrouping and playing for time?
On the flip side, they are gambling that a 2nd EGM won’t be called, because the win at the 1st one was too borderline.
That is the factor Simon Blackler will face as well of course.
In principle, I’d like to see the entire Board dismissed by the members, at which point, members have power and a company obligation to appoint at least one director to keep the company legal. That’s the nuclear option.
However, a second passed resolution of that kind would not be certain.
I personally feel sad that Rob (acting Chair) and the Board have missed an opportunity here - a common-sense opportunity - to appoint Sir Michael as quickly as they have appointed Ellie Bradley (Board evictee and interim CEO), to demonstrate a willingness to walk the walk of change, and not just talk the talk. That would have engendered trust that they were sincere in their ‘Road to Damascus’ conversion. It was possible to do.
As before, they seem to be listening only to the bits they want to hear. The first change hundreds of members called for was the replacement of Mark with Sir Michael. Instead, we have a vacuum of trust and a vacuum of trusted leadership.
Instead, the effect will be continuing loss of trust and confidence. This could lead to further instability for the company. Implicit in today’s announcement seems to me to be the desire to block Sir Michael’s appointment and the level of radical change last week’s EGM was called for.
Sure two fall guys in particular have gone - Russell and Mark - but today we were very much witnessing the same regime re-building itself. I have no trust in this Board’s intended direction. I will speak, and have spoken, to individuals on the Board and members of staff. But as things stand, unless individuals speak out (which they still may do) they will be tarnished with the same opprobrium lavished on Mark and Russell. From their reportedly ‘unanimous’ collaboration in the demonisation of the Public Benefit initiative, they never wanted the proposed changes and were vehemently opposed to what Public Benefit was requesting: Change of leadership right at the top. And everything that would follow from that. This 'remnant' Board rubber-stamped the policies Mark and Russell were kicked out for. None of them have earned trust. All of them have been a part of a regime that was gralloched last week.
To re-shape a quote by (I think) David Cameron: “they are all in this together”.
I'd expect another EGM with a motion of no confidence in the board. If such a motion passes then either the board has to resign as a whole or Companies House get brought in. It seems the only option left to Public Benefit other then giving up.
Second EGM just galloping over the horizon.......
Indeed. Discussions are well underway
Not another consultation?
1. The Garratt Report was fiddled and board members are still setting their salaries without members’ consent (because first draft was subject to requested editorial amendments by the board)
2. The Lyons Report was ignored.
3. The .uk consultation was ignored
What is the reason behind these failures? Same people in charge - CEO Bradley has been in power for 25 years, and now Godaddy (its biggest customer) closely behind pulling strings.
Enough!
Should we take the ball away from Nominet?
Nominet is blazenly misappropriating the cookie jar.
Is it time to move the .uk register to the care of oftel?
Is this an April Fool?
I sincerely hope so. Otherwise, time for the Nominet members that want change to contact their MPs, as I previously suggested here:
https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2021/03/18/nominet_voting_fears/