With Nominet’s board-culling vote just days away, we speak to one man who will publicly support the management On Monday, an extraordinary vote will take place at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the .uk internet registry operator, Nominet. If the single resolution receives more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, the company’s CEO and chairman will be ousted, a third board member removed, and two staff members will be removed …
But if you employ an acquisitions and merger man to run what is essentially a monopolistic utility - what do you expect? The fact, so far, that he hasn't been spectacular successful is not the point. It is - should you be using a captive base to create a venture company?
So the problem is not Russell. He is merely a symptom. Its the direction that Nominet took when or before he was appointed. There really isn't room for compromise. We either fly with Russell et al hoping that he will strike rich. But if he does - who will benefit beyond him and his buddies? Or not and return to being an innovative utility. In which case Russell et al are unsuited to run it. It's a vote about direction, not people.
I agree with Michele Neylon that Nomnet as a utility in delivering .uk domains is a star compared to other registries. I too am a reseller for non uk names. None of those have hiked their prices 60% - and if they did I can switch registries. No such choice for .uk. Hence, it's essential they be stopped from exploiting their unique monopolistic position.
Only way to do that is to vote YES on Monday. I have proxied Simon to do that for me. I'm still awaiting details of how to attend the EGM only two working days beforehand. It is almost if they don't want me there. They are running right up to the edge on their legal obligations. They may have crossed it.
An (enraged) Nominet Member
But if you employ an acquisitions and merger man to run what is essentially a monopolistic utility - what do you expect? The fact, so far, that he hasn't been spectacular successful is not the point. It is - should you be using a captive base to create a venture company?
I think it's several things. Waaay back in the mists of time, Nominet offered me a job. Mainly because I knew a lot of the people running it at the time. But my knowledge of registrar functions was pretty much limited to a well thumbed copy of DNS and Bind. Mangling zone files, especially root zone files was best left to the sysadmins. Plus I'm mostly ethical, and it didn't seem right. But that was kind of how it was in those days.
But that was down to it's success, ie it was swimming in cash so could afford to create the odd job and spend money organising or attending various jollies. Outreach with beer. So I think there can be a problem with 'non-profits' that become very profitable, especially when people confuse that with charities. This is an area that could do with general reform, especially with member 'owned' non-profits who can end up subsidising stuff like unjustifiable pay rises, or spaffing cash on pet projects.
So I guess part of Nominet's problem was it's embarassment of riches, and the temptation to enrich themselves. And in part, end up with a situation where the members are rewarding failure. So just on the basis of picking losers, Haworth should be fired, not rewarded. Nominet was never intended to be a VC fund or incubator, and the money wasted on that should have gone towards reducing costs, not increasing them to try and build up an M&A warchest, or just allow unjustifiable pay increases.
So I think it's well overdue for reform, and getting back to basics. Run the registry, do the outreach stuff, don't waste time or money on non-core business.
"part of Nominet's problem was it's embarassment of riches, and the temptation to enrich themselves. "
Not exactly new. ISOCNZ/DOMAINZ trod this path 20 years ago. It's looking terribly familiar to colonials
If trajectories are matching, Haworth's next gig might be ICANN chair
I don't see much in terms of evasion.
It's working for what he wants it for. The problems that everyone else sees, don't matter to him. If all customers are paying the same for their registrations, then that isn't going to affect his customer base as they'll have to pay the same wherever they go.
It just seems to me that he just isn't enraged by the same moral issues and behaviour towards members, that other people are. So he's fine with corporate greed and silencing of members who don't agree with where the management are going. Like higher prices for registrations, etc.
So the biggest known supporters of the current setup are registrars from Ireland, Germany and the USA.
The main opponents of the current setup are from the UK.
Disgusted to see Nominet management being of more benefit to non-UK companies than local ones.
I just looked at the numbers.
An outfit with only £5 million profit pays its top three directors £1.7M, WTF!
That's insane. It's like the directors think they own the company.
I hope you're ousting a load of board members too, it's really their job to curtail a directors greed [edit: kicking 5 out, yeh kick them out, The last time I saw a board so derelict in duty, it was Nokia, this is not even a close call, look at what happened to Nokia , that could have been avoided if the board had done its job. This board hasn't done its job either, you need to cull them].
GDDY, DRI (on Xetra), both publicly traded, and if they support directors milking the company, then you need to go look at their own management. Buy some shares and go take a look.
It's normal for failed management to pretend that replacing them would make things worse, and their failure is the best possible outcome. That's bullshit, normal lying bullshit, the drivel that is churned out by every failed CEO ever.
Elop ended up with $25 million in his pocket and Nokia sold at firesale prices to Microsoft. The board failed to do its job. This is the same situation.
"That's insane. It's like the directors think they own the company."
With the current setup they more or less do. When you cut sweetheart deals with those members with the biggest clout you don't have to worry about all the smaller companies and their concerns.
Neylon's quote “Registries are meant to be boring and stable." is right. It does not mean that the C suite can use it as their personal piggy bank.
Re: "When you cut sweetheart deals with those members with the biggest clout you don't have to worry about all the smaller companies and their concerns."
DRI:GR (1&1), have their own issues.
Their (1&1) earnings are due 25th March, shareholder meeting expected 26th May, including managements proposal on remuneration reform.
Their long term earnings show slow decline over a long period.
If you read their earnings report they're talking as if the earnings drop is all last quarter and was due to a Telefonica expenses and Covid19, this is not correct, their earnings have been in decline over a long time, and Covid was a boom time for many well run telecoms companies.
Their earnings drop is largely due to their lack of control of costs.
From their 2019 earnings report
"[1&1] Remuneration paid to Management Board members in 2019 totalled €1,716k, of which €700k variable (previous year: €1,416k, of which €690k variable"
Their EBITDA dropped from 2018: 721.9 to 2019:683.5 and despite that their baseline management remuneration increased from 2018: 0.726meur to 2019: 1.017meur.
i.e. operating income dropped by more than 5% yet management of 1&1 got 40% more baseline pay!
I'm not totally shocked though, their management cost is still a fraction of their earnings. It's a sum less than Nominets management, yet 1&1 are a far bigger more complex company.
BUT It would be a BIG RED FLAG though, if they voted to save Nominets management.
Nominets management would be emboldened. Why stop at 1/3rd of profits when you don't answer to members? Why not take it all and flip the bird at them?
1&1's management would be emboldened too, what if 1&1's management decides its need a hefty raise at a time of falling profits? What if they become unresponsive to their own shareholders the way Nominet did?
How could 1&1 have failed to cash in on the Covid19 telecommuting boom! Questions need to be asked! Questions need to be asked of Management at 1&1.
Parallels are not a good thing for 1&1, but they're not that bad, a change of a couple of board members to more independent ones, a steady handover to a new CEO to bring back vigor to the company. Less happy talk in the annual report prefix and more happy numbers in the profit and loss account! They could turn it around steadily. Not so Nominet, that's clearly a failing management helping itself on the way out the door. The slower you drag out their exit, the more painful it will be to Nominet.
Aha, but the breaking news is the fourth largest uk registry - the Canadian Tucows - has already voted YES. That takes the votes to over 2 million and 28%. It's increasingly hard to see how Russell can stitch together a coalition to overcome that hurdle from the other 3 percent-ers. But they are obviously trying and, as we have seen, will pull every devious trick to make that happen.
A (slightly happier) Nominet Member
To quote another former would-be dictator: "I just want to find 11,780 votes,"
And if the vote goes against him might Mr Haworth be "alleging widespread electoral fraud without providing any evidence." however I doubt he'd be able to find anyone to storm Minerva House.
Haworth's blocking of all attempts at dialogue clearly demonstrate his lack of ability, it should have been obvious to him that effectively putting his fingers in his ears and singing la la la, would only result in somebody shouting much louder to be heard.
I think for a UK registry there ought to be voting limitations applied to non UK members.
This post has been deleted by its author
he is a hypocrite, drawing attention to what is likely to happen now, conveniently 'forgetting' a volley after volley from a shotgun fired by the 'management' in place of a dialogue, who embarked on a LONG-TERM heist to turn nominet into their own, private, cash cow, 'because why not'.
I say, shotgun is not good enough now, use a 6-barrel autocannon, then a flame-thrower to burn off the soot, then 5 layers of bleach, then inspect under the microscope, then new carpet, to be checked regularly, to make sure the ghost of the past management isn't hatching underneath. To clarify, this is a minimalist suggestion.
This post has been deleted by its author
If your spouse starts taking ever greater portions of your income for their own desires, spends it frivolously & capriciously on things you were never consulted on, loses you massive amounts of money on said speculative gambling, & refuses to even entertain the idea of talking to you to debate your side of the issue, not only would I want a divorce but a restraining order, an independant audit of their finances to claw back my money, & a mandatory psychiatric evaluation to force them to get help for their obviously sociopathic tendencies.
Disruptive? YES it'll be disruptive, as in it'll put a heavy boot on the neck of the lying & theiving little fucker to stop their graft. That's the whole. fucking. point.
Not to mention those meetings with the American guy who works in cyber, she used to tell you all about those, but after investing in his business and signing a NDA couldn't tell you one iota more. She keeps telling you it's critical for the household infrastructure, but you just can't shake that 'spectrum management' feeling.
...before you decide that the relationship isn't working?
The historical behaviour (ignoring outcomes of previous investigations, closing member engagement channels *during* membership meetings e.t.c. e.t.c.) alone should be enough, let alone the shenanigans that have taken place since the EGM was called
the single act of providing membership contact details via 500+ sheets of A4 paper when requested indicates exactly what the board of Nominet think of accountability and the membership
that anyone who had the opportunity could consider NOT enacting change when presented to them confuses me, and leads me to suspect that those that don't are more than happy with the current situation (e.g. large registrars who benefit from their "special relationship" aka .uk domain fiasco)
If the resolution doesn't pass, signalling from the current board already shows what will take place and that is a move to a structure away from not-for-profit to corporate organisation and then the chance to correct the ship will become infinitely harder, or impossible, in the future
I for one have moved my domains away from those enabling this current management to registrars that have realised that the tools to correct this situation were envisaged from the outset and should be enacted, before the chance to fix is gone for good
Unfortunately Michelle appears to have had his eyes and ears closed for the last 5/6 years, otherwise he'd know this isn't out of the blue, and that many attempts at dialogue have been made.
You can't have dialogue with a company that shuts down avenues of communication and only wants to speak to individuals, which it then gives platitudes to and "you're the first one to bring this up" BS. A company that claims to be at the forefront of digital:
- but sends member details out on several hundred sheets of A4
- does not give members all the information they need to make an informed EGM voting choice
- gleefully closes down a members forum (after roundly ignoring it for several years)
Is not a company that wants dialogue.
Sorry Michelle, you're a decent bloke, but you've been asleep at the wheel on this one.
I'd say you're rather an optimist and a very kind person, which makes you, IMO, a much more decent person than him.
I fail to see, given the amount of articles on Nominet in the past few years, how anyone actually concerned by this situation could possibly ignore the actions and mismanagement of the current Board.
The fact that Michelle chooses to ignore it means to me that there is a vested interest in keeping the status quo, for reasons unknown.
Directorships are most often a reward for going to the right school. And remember, some of those schools specialise in elevating sub-monkey brains into positions of power, where their lack of thought can be mitigated by squadrons of intelligent, poorly paid drones, who actually get things done and make it all work.
The problem is, once accustomed to getting paid for doing nothing of particular use to the company sets in, it isn't such a great leap to wanting to get paid more for doing sod all. And not being hampered with a high functioning brain, the idea that the plebs might object to your getting remunerated far beyond your worth, just doesn't get factored in.
Their grab for everything they can get their hands on is delivering consequences they never conceived of, and thus have proved themselves incapable of the forward thinking necessary to run an organisation. Damned by their own actions and lack of forethought. You are the weakest link...F.O.A.D.
- Removing the executives IS a dramatic step .. MANY other efforts over several years have failed
- Yes you do get divorced after [a long sad period of failing relationship] an argument
- The double-barrelled shotgun is simply down to how the Nominet board has decided to respond to this call for an EGM (drama and panic) - a fantastic plan has been put together by publicbenefituk with some great interim directors
However, we all seem to share the same desire for change and there is always the option to sit down and talk. Hey Michele - how about offering some sort of mediation here?
“Registries are meant to be boring and stable. I don’t want drama. In many ways, I don’t need to know how [the registry] works, it just needs to work.”
Then he should be blaming the present incumbents of the board for creating the drama that got to an EGM.
If he votes No and the vote goes Yes, then he's not going to be to kicked out.
If he did vote Yes and the vote went No then he may have created some enmity with the board.
If he votes No and the vote goes No, then there's no change so far as he's concerned.
So even without considering the Yes/Yes option, it looks like the status quo is makes sense for him.
Dialogue? What dialogue? From my reading of this story, dialogue has been attempted for years, pretty much one way, and culminating in closing down one of the means of dialogue.
Which sends a pretty strong message.
This is a pretty strong, entirely appropriate, and justified response.
> Firing five board members at once will be “hugely disruptive"
No it won't. That's the kind of narcissistic thinking that leads board members to believe they are somehow indispensable.
Nominet will continue just fine under a "carry on as you are" directive for a few weeks until a new chairman and board members are appointed.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
