EGM - What happened?

[Systreg]

It is done

EGM: motion to remove 5 Board members has passed. Our contingency plan is now in effect. Rob Binns, Acting Chair, will write to members tonight with details. Priorities are stability and working with members and stakeholders to agree a future path. More: https://t.co/QWFovtBBqz?amp=1

 

[jmcc]

The vote was close according to a link on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/garysmi/status/1374110275398475777/photo/1

52.7% For. 47.3% Against.

Here's the Nominet PDF:
https://media.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Nominet_EGM_ROV.pdf


Regards...jmcc

 

[webber]

Incredible how close the vote was and how many members have voted

 

[ukbackorder]

Does that mean they'll clamour for another vote whilst claiming that people didn't know what they were voting for?

 

[TinkyWinky]

For them to get 47% I would assume that those in the top 10 who hadn't declared pretty much voted for the status quo (i.e. most of them 3% max share vote) - shame on Iomart and UK2 if that is the case... Wonder if we'll ever find out the split - can we do a Freedom of Information?

 

[jmcc]

Early in the EGM, Nominet mentioned that the mergers and acquisitions meant that PDR's voting figure was zeroed. Newfold Digital combined Endurance International Group (owners of PDR and others) and Web.com. Without the mergers and acquisitions of the past few years, (Godaddy's various takeovers of UK hosters and CentralNic's takeovers) the vote could have been very different.

Regards...jmcc

 

[Admin]

I can't help feeling a little sad..... that this wasn't done sooner . How UK Gov can allow the organisation that manages its internet name space to be unaccountable is mind-boggling. I'm celebrating.

 

[jasman]

Judging from Robert Binn's email, the Nominet leadership are planning on simply carrying through the proposals that Howarth put forward. That's not what we want! We (the members who are listed on publicbenefit.uk) need to stick together now and tell Nominet what changes we want.

In my opinion the most important single change to push for, that would assure members of a real say in any future plans Nominet have, is to alter the voting rights either back to one vote per member as it used to be or at least to lower the maximum vote cap so that big registrars get less of a say. All the problems for the membership started once Nominet leadership tricked the membership into giving up their vote. Since that day, Nominet has cosied up to the big registrars and treated the other members with contempt. By demanding that the voting system is changed, any future votes will represent the membership as a whole and Nominet won't be able to push through whatever plans it likes against members' interests by getting the backing of a small number of big registrars .

The second most important change to push for in my opinion is to lower the wholesale cost back down to £2.50+VAT. Nominet have had a massive windfall since their introduction of .uk domains (which most members were opposed to) and they should be very happy with that. If anything the wholesale cost should go lower than it used to be. Recent comments from the former board boasting about how Nominet's revenues have shot up during their tenure are disgraceful. Can you imagine your electricity supplier bragging about how much they have hiked up prices in recent years? The higher revenues are due to Nominet "extorting" more money out of members when they are supposed to be operating on a non-profit basis to benefit the UK digital economy.

We need to keep the momentum going and stay together as a group so the threat of more EGMs hangs over the board if they veer away from running the registry for the benefit of members.

 

[Siusaidh]

I am full of respect for the way Simon Blackler organised this campaign and the way he conducted himself. It is also moving to see so many members taking a stand and saying enough is enough.

The campaign is of course only halfway there. The signatories called for a Resolution 2 as well: that Sir Michael Lyons be appointed as new interim Chairman, and Axel Pawlik also be made a director, to fill a vacuum of leadership in the company.

The considerable challenge is that the remaining directors have reportedly been unanimous in opposition to Resolution 1, let alone Resolution 2 which they blocked. Therefore, as things stand, Nominet is in the hands of people who opposed the Public Benefit campaign.

Not all those directors actually hold the convictions promulgated by the CEO and Chairman. But a time is coming where they have to decide whether to recognise the prevailing wishes of the membership, which included the early appointment of Sir Michael as interim chair - something which has been done before and is by no means unwise, given his credentials and knowledge of the company, and the need for orderly transition - or to obstruct the wishes of the membership which have been demonstrated today. The campaign was about both resolutions.

I'd suggest they need to decide whether they accept the changes called for, or step down, or resist and obstruct.

That final option would be tiresome for all, and damaging for the company, because in setting themselves in opposition to the will of the members (who delegate power to them and can remove that power) they would be risking a Resolution 3, which would remove them as well. Simon Blackler has now set a deadline of March 26th (the end of this week) for them to indicate if they will opt for that early appointment of Sir Michael. In practice I suspect they may need two weeks to consult and clarify.

However, their response will indicate whether they have *really* heard the will of the members and accepted the changes proposed, or not.

But for tonight, a sincere well done to Simon Blackler, and to everyone who cared enough to take a stand for the UK namespace.

 

[stitchbob]

I think the approach to Sir Michael and Axel will be very telling about how serious Nominet actually are about their commitment to "listen and change."

The membership have made their wishes clear. Furthermore, the appointment is purely an interim one - it doesn't commit Nominet to retain them permanently. It simply puts in place board members who are clearly aligned with the wishes of the members. Given that the entire board are currently unanimously opposed to today's action, I'd say that this is vital.

Appointing Sir Michael and Axel is the easiest of easy wins for Nominet at this point. It sends a clear message that they're not just paying lip service to the members following today's result, and will reassure many members that they actually want to fix things. That will win back a lot of the trust that has been lost over the last few years, and will put them in a strong position to have any other proposals taken seriously.

If they don't, that is very telling about how much the board actually intend to listen to the members they are supposed to represent, and how committed they are to making the vague changes they promise.

 

[Edwin]

Chairman, CEO of Nominet ousted as member rebellion drives .uk registry back to non commercial roots
https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/22/nominet_board_sacked/

Superb summary of the whole sorry story by Kieren McCarthy. Keep an eye on the comments section as more reactions filter in...

(Apologies for any weird formatting - cutting and pasting on mobile seems to play up.)

 

[stitchbob]

"To start with, the named Directors have vacated their Board seats."

The phrasing here is interesting. As I recall, the EGM resolution was to remove 5 *Directors*, not to remove 5 Directors *from the Board.* A subtle but important difference.

I trust that the email was just hastily written, and the Directors have indeed been removed as required by the EGM.

 

[ukbackorder]

It was only ever to remove them from the board. Sadly not their jobs for Mark and Russell (although Russell resigned anyway).

*Edit oh I see what you mean. Remove their director status but not fire them.

 

[Nigel]

Good news today. We're not quite there yet but looking forward to the day when we have a board who value and promote the .co.uk/.uk extension, instead of treating it as a cashcow for selfish reasons.

 

[Fred Steven]

The second most important change to push for in my opinion is to lower the wholesale cost back down to £2.50+VAT. Nominet have had a massive windfall since their introduction of .uk domains (which most members were opposed to) and they should be very happy with that. If anything the wholesale cost should go lower than it used to be. Recent comments from the former board boasting about how Nominet's revenues have shot up during their tenure are disgraceful. Can you imagine your electricity supplier bragging about how much they have hiked up prices in recent years? The higher revenues are due to Nominet "extorting" more money out of members when they are supposed to be operating on a non-profit basis to benefit the UK digital economy.

I was all for the publicbenefit movememnt but I disagree in some part with the pricing issue, for the general public the cost of a uk registration is small and not really an issue, but for domainers sitting on 1000's of domains yes its a big issue. I myself would rather pay a few extra £ if I knew the proceeds would go to charity.

Maybe they should increase the wholesale price to £10.00 so domainers would have to release some of the domains giving the public a better chance at them.

 

[jmcc]

The voting rights numbers have been published:
https://media.nominet.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Nominet-UK-Voting-Rights-2021.pdf

Regards...jmcc

 

[HariSeldon]

I myself would rather pay a few extra £ if I knew the proceeds would go to charity.

Maybe they should increase the wholesale price to £10.00 so domainers would have to release some of the domains giving the public a better chance at them.

Charity should be a personal choice not forced upon everyone. I also wonder if you were given the choice of paying £3.90 as normal to renew a domain or optionally paying £10 with the extra pounds going to charity, would you really choose the latter every time?

I suspect (perhaps someone like @Edwin has a better feel for the numbers involved?) the number of domains held by domainers is a tiny fraction of the 12 million registered domains so it seems perverse to penalise everyone with higher prices just to try and force a small number of domains to be dropped.

 

[Edwin]

Bear in mind that when the wholesale price rose from £2.50/year to £3.50/year (and then rose again) the big public-facing registrars put their own prices up by far more than the wholesale price increase. (It's all very well to say tiny registrar X didn't choose to gouge its customers that way, but that's irrelevant if the vast majority of people and companies have never heard of or used them).

Net effect: almost all consumers are paying a LOT more for their domains than they were before Nominet started getting greedy. For example, at 123-Reg, the price is (£0.99+VAT plus £11.99+VAT)=£12.98+VAT for a 2-year .co.uk or .uk registration. Why did I write it that way? Because they have a 99p domain promotion, but in the small print they point out that's just for year 1 of a 2-year registration. And their renewals are £11.99+VAT a year. GoDaddy charges 1p but £11.99 for the 2nd year and renewals, and you have to register for 2 years minimum. And so on.

I have already posted elsewhere about the eye-watering cost increase to domainers. Not going to repeat that here. Follow the link if you're interested...
https://www.acorndomains.co.uk/thre...sale-price-has-evolved-over-the-years.171332/

 

[Edwin]

Here are 2 analyses I did on the subject of wholesale and retail domain pricing in 2015/2016, around the time of the original price rise, and incorporating registrar reactions to it.

(It's not worth my time and effort to update the material for 2021, but the overall picture these documents paint remains valid.)

Wholesale domain price rise
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rsFMaIL5wuMwWM_rpslCNBdFj0YvU54s/view?usp=sharing

Retail domain price rise
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1il0feKNR7j6KjEqusJ1J13JSq93sE_b6/view?usp=sharing

 

[jmcc]

Maybe they should increase the wholesale price to £10.00 so domainers would have to release some of the domains giving the public a better chance at them.

A strange effect happens when domain name prices are raised. It increases some renewal rates because people think that the money they have sunk into renewing the domain names over the years makes them more valuable. (The Sunk Cost Fallacy.) If the price rise is too steep, it sends the TLD into a tailspin but if it is done gradually, it helps the renewal rates. Most of the registries understand this effect and are very careful with it. It is why some of the new gTLDs have a first year renewal rate of around 70%. They are typically the ones with a registration fee that is two or three times that of .COM. The ccTLDs have a captive audience in that they generally dominate their country's market.

Regards...jmcc