back to article Nominet chooses civil war over compromise by rejecting ex-BBC Trust chairman

Nominet has chosen civil war over compromise, formally rejecting members' calls to install former BBC Trust chairman Sir Michael Lyons as chair of the .uk registry operator. “After much careful consideration, the board has decided not to invite Sir Michael to be acting chair,” said Nominet's acting chairman Rob Binns in a …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Please finish this soon. I'm getting sick of popcorn.

    1. TimMaher Silver badge
      Happy

      Sick of popcorn.

      I’ll send you a tub of my covfefe as soon as it arrives from Zeebrugge.

    2. Shadow Systems

      Sick of popcorn?

      May I interest you in a sausage on a bun? Perhaps a mystery meat pie? I've got sticky buns, pastries, and fruit filled muffins. Perhaps some candy?

      Mayhaps you could use a folding camp chair in which to sit to rest your tired legs? Maybe a nice long stick upon which to roast your marshmallows over the shite pyre of this debaucle? I've got ghram crackers & squares of chocolate for sale to make your Smores as yummy as possible!

      *Shouts out to be heard above the gathering mob*Munchies! Supplies! CMOT Dibbler's got 'em all!

      =-D

      1. Dave559 Silver badge

        Re: Sick of popcorn?

        Albatross?

        (…which also seems to describe the decaying remains of the current Nominet board only too well)

    3. Franco

      Better switch to something else for a while and get ready for the Autonomy trial verdict.

      Entirely as expected though, unless a way is found to force the board out completely they'll keep doing stuff like this

  2. Big_Boomer Silver badge

    It's Time

    Time to push the red button on the gear lever.

    https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-25-2015/QKoQXb.gif

  3. Chewi

    Who's the fool?

    I felt foolish for falling for the April Fools article for a minute. Evidently I shouldn't have.

    1. Chewi

      Re: Who's the fool?

      Wait, now I'm not even sure that article was fake. You linked to it in this article. This one is just about the decision being made formal?

      1. katrinab Silver badge
        Flame

        Re: Who's the fool?

        It wasn't fake. It's the 2020s. Reality is crazier than fiction.

        The actual April Fool was to make people think it was an April Fool when it was real.

      2. doublelayer Silver badge

        Re: Who's the fool?

        It wasn't. In that article is a link to the Nominet statement on a Nominet site. You can verify that. It's all real.

  4. chuckufarley Silver badge
    Coat

    It's a good thing that...

    ...The UK isn't in the middle of executing a Brexit plan that is doomed to fail while managing the fallout of a global pandemic. Other wise the government would have it's hands full and wouldn't intervene.

    Oh wait...

    1. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Re: It's a good thing that...

      If the whiff of a cushy* job reaches politico snouts I'm sure someone will find the time to intervene.

      *smile, promise to listen to the members, make a few quick minor changes, keep the cash...

      1. Warm Braw

        Re: It's a good thing that...

        I hear David Cameron is looking for a new opportunity.

        And if the members are troublesome, he has a friend who specialises in dismemberment.

    2. veti Silver badge

      Re: It's a good thing that...

      Seriously, you want the government intervening in this?

      Haven't they screwed up enough already?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: It's a good thing that...

        When the government is crap, using that as a reason to promote the private sector is a slippery slope that the USA has gone down.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: It's a good thing that...

          Sure, but conversely - expecting the government to step in every time the private sector looks shaky is a slippery slope that every European country has been down at least once. (Britain did it in the 70s, and it took Thatcher to cure it. Do you really want to go through that again?)

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: It's a good thing that...

            As the anon. you are replying to, yep, I agree with you too. Frankly, I'm surprised at the downvotes you got.

  5. Wellyboot Silver badge

    When you're stuck in a hole...

    stop digging!

    >>>effectively daring members to hold a second extraordinary general meeting (EGM) and vote them out, too<<<

    or to put it another way - sticking two fingers up at the implicit mandate from the result.

    Another EGM may be proposing a major change to the board election process as well as removing the remaining bunch.

    1. don't you hate it when you lose your account

      Re: When you're stuck in a hole...

      The suspicion grows that there's more to keep hidden by these people. The excessive pay was bad enough, what the hell else are they trying to hide.

      1. cipnt

        Re: When you're stuck in a hole...

        Exactly!

        This desperate attitude can't be all about remuneration. There's probably something a lot more sinister hiding in the accounting books that they don't want people to see.

        Who know how much they've been syphoning out of the coffers through various supplier contracts and those failed acquisitions.

        1. the hatter

          Re: When you're stuck in a hole...

          Whatever else may be lurking, the board will need to make sure their pension plans are secured, because it's going to be a tough sell for any of them to take up senior roles elsewhere, once they finally get the boot. And if they do, t's going to be a hostile welcome from anyone not involved in the hiring, because why would anyone get that sort of person involved ?

    2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      Re: When you're stuck in a hole...

      Unfortunately, the voting system is likely to be changed and agreed by the board to make the same voting pattern result in a win for the board.

      It's a distressing prospect, but the people who want to resist change now hold all of the strings, and have been pre-warned.

      The thing is that there are actually registries who hold votes who actually want the current situation to persist, probably because it gives them an undue say in the way that domain registrations work.

      If there was to be government intervention, it should be to make sure that there is an ombudsman with sufficient power to penalize the board if they deviate from their core company resolutions.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: When you're stuck in a hole...

        "the voting system is likely to be changed and agreed by the board "

        A change to the voting system has to be approved by the membership, not the board. There has to be a 75% majority of those who voted too.

        https://media.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Nominet-UK-Articles-of-Association-2020-.pdf

        19A Except as required by law, before making any change to the level of Membership subscriptions, the Board must consult with the Members by conducting a ballot. The ballot, which may be carried out by electronic communication or in writing must seek votes for and against each proposed change; and the Board shall only implement the proposed change if at least seventy-five percent of the votes cast in the ballot are in favour of the proposed change.

        1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

          Re: When you're stuck in a hole...

          Hmm. Not really up on company legalese, but your interpretation sounds like a different definition of "subscription" than I am used to. I would expect that a "subscription" to be something like "An arrangement to receive something, typically a publication, regularly by paying in advance." (taken from the OED). So this looks like a provision to set membership fees. This appears to be backed up by article 3.5 on dismissal of a member, "in any case, if any subscription due to the Company remains outstanding for more than one month; "

          Actually reading the Articles of Association that you pointed to (thanks for that), seems to give the chairman (sic) of the board quite a lot of power with regard to informing the members of a meeting and the resolutions at the meeting. It appears to absolve the board for members not receiving the invitation to a general meeting. In addition, according to article 5.1, the choice of allowing the remote attendance of a general meeting appears to be at the whim of the board, and if an electronic meeting appears to be going "wrong", the chairman of the meeting has the option to immediately terminate the it.

          Quorum for a general meeting seems to be as low as six members!

          In addition, the chairman seems to be able to determine how a "show of hands" vote will be carried out and recorded unless a poll is called for.

          I can see nothing at all in the Articles of Association regarding the allocation of voting rights. This is probably covered in previous resolutions rather than the articles, but I don't know about those. It would appear from the articles that it is one member, one vote, with companies on the board appearing as a single member. This does not seem like a particularly workable setup, so I'm sure there must be more complexity in the system, which appears to be the case from previous stories.

          I would not count the board out yet.

    3. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

      Re: When you're stuck in a hole...

      I am sure these board members do not feel like they are at the bottom of a hole. Perhaps more like Tigger at the top of a tree. There is no way to go further up, they cannot climb down and now they are being told to walk away.

      1. Eclectic Man Silver badge

        Re: When you're stuck in a hole...

        They are not stuck in a hole. Their motto may be more like:

        'When your snout is in a trough, keep guzzling.'

        I assume, of course the the remaining directors are receiving adequate remuneration for their efforts. If there is 'writing on the wall' fro them, then their bets course of action may be to wring as much money out of Nominet as they can while the going is good. But then I don't know any of them, and they may be perfectly reasonable and nice people as far as I know.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The arrogance of the entitled

    The contempt and arrogance shown by the Nominet board is truly stunning.

    Having fixed themselves a cushy job where they get paid unjustifiably large salaries for doing remarkably little, the board is doing everything they can to make sure that they keep them. Far from acting as if they are a member driven and owned organisation, the board seem to view Nominet's members as little more than cash cows to inflate their already over-inflated bank accounts.

    The entire board should be sacked and the sooner the better.

    1. rg287

      Re: The arrogance of the entitled

      The contempt and arrogance shown by the Nominet board is truly stunning.

      It's an astonishing show of nihilism by... elected board members who can be very easily unelected, either at the AGM or EGMv2.

      1. 42656e4d203239 Silver badge

        Re: The arrogance of the entitled

        >>elected board members who can be very easily unelected, either at the AGM or EGMv2.

        Err not if they rig the voting in their favour.... or in favour of their chums who want them in place to preserve whatever gravy train they have running, which, of course, has the same net effect.

        As the weighting of the voting is not made public (see El Reg. passim), the smaller members cannot see how or even if their votes count.

    2. anothercynic Silver badge

      Re: The arrogance of the entitled

      Oust the entire board. They cannot be trusted.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The arrogance of the entitled

      Remarkably, it works very well for them, and they're in a good position to win next round.

      So what they're doing is rather logical.

  7. Lucien Taylor

    Watch the big quiet members in the background

    It is an outrage having to ask the people you have fired (by EGM) to stand aside. There is no other way of looking at it, they are being propped up by those with self interest. The bigger players (outside the UK) seem to be at odds with the wider membership, the smaller players inside the UK. Very unpleasant business.

  8. Chris G

    What this needs

    Is wider publicity, so that the British public is aware of the greed and diversion of funds into greedy pockets. However, I don't see government intervention as being desirable, particularly as my impression of recent governments is that they support exactly this kind of profiteering.

    Apparently, the 1405 law requiring every town to have a pillory has never been repealed, I can think of a use for one.

    1. nematoad

      Re: What this needs

      Where I live we've still got our stocks and whipping post.

      Looks like a good time to spruce them up and put them back into working order.

    2. Peter2 Silver badge

      Re: What this needs

      Apparently, the 1405 law requiring every town to have a pillory has never been repealed, I can think of a use for one.

      Is that true, or did you just read it on the BBC website? It's not on the legislation.gov.uk website, which is the authoritative source of UK laws and it's also not present in Halsbury's Laws of England or any reputable sources (history books etc) as so far as I can see.

      The Statute of Labourers act was passed in 1351, and had no requirement for towns to have stocks or a pillory. (the act was passed after the black death depleted the workforce and made it illegal to pay a higher wage than the average before the pandemic, or for the peasants to move to where people were being paid more)

      1. Chris G

        Re: What this needs

        @Peter2

        Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Labourers_1351

        at the bottom of the third paragraph in the section headed CONTENT.

        I originally found the reference to the 1405 update to the Statute of Labourers on a site called Atlas Obscura dated 2/7/2016 something to do with a town called Thame and a councillor called Bretherton.

        1. Peter2 Silver badge

          Re: What this needs

          So, to recap.

          1) We have an article posted on Wikipedia, the BBC has referenced Wikipedia and other places then referenced the BBC for a law having been written stating stocks were required to be built at all (which is actually objectively in some doubt)

          2) And no evidence whatsoever to support the specific claim that this law is still in force today. Because you know, it's not actually in either the statue books or the governments legislation.gov.uk service, and ergo not in force.

    3. oiseau
      WTF?

      Re: What this needs

      If it is a Civil War they want, then what this needs is what Civil War brought along in 1649:

      A scaffold and a firm pair of hands holding an axe.

      NB: just figure of speech, right?

      O.

  9. sbt
    WTF?

    Was the legal validity of refusing to put the second motion to the EGM...

    ...ever resolved? If they'd fought that one a bit harder, maybe we'd not be here.

    Board seems to be delaying the inevitable.

    1. cipnt

      Press the power button for 5 seconds

      Simon Blackler at the time explained that disputing Nominet's refusal of putting the second motion to the vote would have taken months in court and would have delayed the entire EGM (plus the huge legal costs). The whole thing would have lost momentum and Nominet would have had more time to spread their FUD and give registrars special deals in exchange for their vote.

      It was the right thing to go ahead with just one resolution – we made some progress and there was hope the remaining Board would see the writing on the wall and cooperate.

      But we are where we are now so it looks like we need to call a second EGM to get rid of all the Board and start fresh.

  10. Adair Silver badge

    It's absolutely outrageous

    ... that respectable market makers are having their right and freedom to enjoy the well earned rewards of a job well done are being interfered with and obstructed by a bunch of miserablist busybodies with too much time on their hands, and a grudge against anyone who clearly has a better grasp of market forces and how to turn them to advantage than they do.

    This kind of behaviour in a modern economy is intolerable! When is the Government going to step in and ensure the rights of freedom loving business people are respected and upheld? It's exactly this kind of reprehensible collectivist negativity that led us to leave the EU. The fact that some seem to think they can carry on with impunity as they always have done needs to be dealt with promptly and severely, as an example to others of what Britain is all about now.

    Honestly, it makes you wonder why we bother paying any tax at all!

    1. heyrick Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: It's absolutely outrageous

      You pay tax because Rees-Mogg couldn't handle a Real Job.

      My coat is the one with Erskine May in the pocket.

  11. heyrick Silver badge
    Mushroom

    It's about time...

    TVS lost to Meridian.

    Virgin lost to FirstGroup.

    And so on.

    It's about time this was opened up for alternatives to offer to pledge to run the registry correctly, and for the best option to be chosen (and Nominet ended).

    Icon, because this is getting beyond farce and parody.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's about time...

      WTF? Any contract or franchise that Beardie Group lost could only be a change for the better.

      1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

        Re: It's about time...

        I'd disagree with that. Virgin used to run our nearest main line - and did a very nice job of it.

        We got fresh new trains, and in partnership with the rail people (whatever they're called this week) got some nice upgrades, and the Virgin managed stations were nice places to be for a change.

        So far (or at least, as of a little over a year ago when I last went anywhere) nothing seems to have changed with the change to ... err ... what are they called again ? But then I'd not expect anything to change quickly.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It's about time...

      "It's about time this was opened up for alternatives to offer to pledge to run the registry correctly, and for the best option to be chosen (and Nominet ended)."

      That's easier said than done. The simplest solution is the removal of Nominet's board and senior management, replacing them with people who can fix the epic governance fuck-up and carry out the wholesale restructuring that now has to take place. Which are not easy things to do.

      Completely replacing Nominet is far, far harder. For starters, define "best option" and "run the registry correctly". How does that get agreed? Who gets to decide what's meant by best AND what should replace Nominet? How is the replacement registry chosen? What criteria apply? Who oversees the contract with the new registry? Who are the contract parties? How do you ensure that the new registry provider - probably based overseas - will be accountable or transparent or responsive?

      This inevitably brings you back to where .uk started 25+ years ago. You end up needing some sort of non-profit multistakeholder beast to preside over things even if it doesn't run the registry. That's essentially a Nominet Board V2. With all the same risks and dangers that the current setup was exposed to.

      By all means sack the current board and the rest of satan's little helpers. But be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Nominet the .uk registry is just fine. Leave it alone. Nominet the institution is a basket case because of the dysfunctional board. That's what needs fixing.

  12. Dabooka

    EGM v2

    I can only assume any appetite for support for the second vote would be greater than the first?

    Surely there is likely to be an appreciation from at some of those who voted No to shift across now they can see the way the place is being ran and managed.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: EGM v2

      Surely there is likely to be an appreciation from at some of those who voted No to shift across now they can see the way the place is being ran and managed

      That's not very likely at all. Those who voted no were by definition happy with the status quo and the performance of the pre-EGM board. Why would they change their minds now? What's left of that discredited board is continuing to run Nominet the way those no voters wanted. From their PoV, they're content with how that board is running Nominet.

      IIRC one of those no voters was quoted in an earlier article saying "I don't care what happens in the boardroom as long as the core registry works". An attitude like that isn't going to change because of the board's latest stunt.

    2. cipnt

      Re: EGM v2

      We simply don't know...

      The turnout at the first EGM was the biggest ever, it was an incredible achievement. Not sure if we can reach the same level again, to be honest.

      Nominet's FUD was clearly all lies then, but now it would be actually valid – removing the entire Board is a serious disruption to the company. Some members might think it's too radical.

      We need to try. It's our right to call for an EGM.

      If that fails, at the AGM later this year, we have to elect better NEDs that support the Public Benefit principles and not those who want a Nominet PLC

    3. the hatter

      Re: EGM v2

      Most of the votes to retain the status quo were from a very small number of very big companies. They weren't voting because they think the board are doing things right, they're voting in their own self interest, which may well be even stronger now they've propped up the incumbents, so can push for things to work even more in their favour. Plus most of those companies are not merely not known for their strong grasp of ethics, but in fact for actively making highly unethical choices.

      Perhaps a few small/smaller members who didn't vote may be sufficiently outraged and shocked by what happened after the vote to throw their weight in. I can't imagine too many smaller members voted against the EGM except out of self interest, but perhaps a closer choice between profit and ethics - maybe they will see the campaign's words about the character of the board were not mere hyperbole. All these will require a good amount more effort to reach out to though, along with those who voted for, but only because they were sufficiently reminded to make the effort.

  13. uro

    This just demonstrates that Nominet board members and staff think they are above and beyond scrutiny, they seem to think they are beyond reproach, that they are in some way untouchable through their continued support and back rubbing of each other, they have long since circled their wagons.

    The only way to fix this is for entire board to be sacked, with staffers suspended until such a time as an open investigation into their actions is completed.

    I'd suggest another EGM is held at the earliest opportunity, with the ousting of the entire board and suspension of staff due to the internal corrupt practices we are watching unfold infront of us being high on the agenda.

  14. Stuart Moore
    Megaphone

    move your domain

    If you have a UK domain - move it to a registrar who is against this. If you can get your workplace to do so too.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: move your domain

      Not just UK domains.

      I just moved my two .net domains away from GoDaddy as punishment for voting No.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: move your domain

        porkbun.com appears to offer the best value at the moment.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: move your domain

          I wish the downvoter would tell me why - I'm all for hearing of a better value registrar!

  15. Arthur the cat Silver badge

    Judicial review

    Anyone know if Nominet could be subjected to judicial review?

    1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

      Re: Judicial review

      Judicial review applies to government bodies only; you get to question the process that lead to a decision, not the decision itself, and is about £20-30k a pop. So neither applicable, nor a great option if it was.

  16. Alan Brown Silver badge

    |Deja Vu

    DOMAINZ, ISOCNZ - 20 years later

    the more things change the more they stay the same

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "We have no plans" ...... hummmmmmmmmm

    @Nominet “We are a private company, limited by guarantee, which means profits cannot be distributed to members or anybody else, but are invested back into the business or into public benefit. There are no plans to change that.”

    Ah, that magic phrase “There are no plans to change that”. No plans today but once we have got rid of all those irritating, pesky, troublesome members who keep asking so many questions, then we can do what we want.

  18. masterbaiter

    Follow the money

    How did that appalling company Godaddy end up on the board? (I know from experience that companies I used to do business with and used to think highly of got bought out by that evil business, and they raised prices and decimated service, but through laziness, I admit, I haven't -yet! - done much about it.) To my shame I have about 70 domains with Goddady and Ionos and other miscreants like that. But not for much longer. I'm transferring my domains to more ethical companies (and you know what? they're often cheaper too!) and I think if enough of us did so, those aholes might start to pay attention. Please, fellow el Reg denizens: vote with your wallets. That's the only language these scumbags will understand.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    No way out

    This melodrama is beginning to sound (smell?) like Mel Brooks' The Producers, with the Nominet board in the role of Max Bialystock and the reformers in the role of Leopold Bloom.

  20. Cynicalmark
    Devil

    Oh dear

    Caught with their hands in the proverbial till, the remaining execs are either stupidly arrogant or just plain stupid. There is something darker to this activity & they are getting desperate by snubbing members wishes following an extraordinary vote of no confidence. Methinks there is potential for a fraud story by the end of the autumn. Can’t wait.

  21. A.P. Veening Silver badge

    Another EGM might not work (too many "members" supporting the existing system for various reasons), so other, preferably legal, ways are necessary to remove the board. Having them do time should work, so start digging for dirt. HMRC might be the best bet.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like