We have a situation here where if we aren't careful, Kieren and Jim will dilute the votes of smaller members and gift the position to Volker.
In fact the opposite may be true under the rating voting system that Nominet uses.
When you vote, you rate in order of preference: 1, 2, 3. If no one gets more than 50 per cent of people's first votes, then the person with the least first votes is pulled out, and that person's second votes are added to the others' tallies.
Because there are some large registrars that have said they put me as their first choice and Volker second, the actual risk of "gifting the position to Volker" lies in voting for Jim.
But fundamentally, just vote for who you want in the order you want them.
------------
Re: Cyglass
Kieren's attitude to this seems to be, nothing to see here, let's move on?
My attitude is here, and it is very, very far from "nothing to see here":
https://www.kierenmccarthy.co.uk/2022/08/10/what-nominet-must-learn-from-the-cyglass-debacle/
Here is the last part of it:
Why does this matter and what should happen now?
Those who don’t learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
While the organisation has admitted that it lost roughly £18m buying and supporting CyGlass, there’s been very little effort to dig into why Nominet made such a terrible investment, why it continued to invest many millions more, why the organisation wasn’t honest with its members, and what systems are in place to prevent something similar from happening again.
Even Simon Blackler, who successfully forced Nominet to confront its failures through the Public Benefit campaign and now sits on the Board has made it plain that he does not intend to look deeper into the problem.
While I agree with Simon that an official inquiry is not the answer, I don’t agree that it should be swept under the carpet. It is worth considering what Nominet should have done last month when it finally announced the end of its connection with CyGlass, why it didn’t, and what that means about where the organisation is, and needs to go, in its reform efforts.
Here’s what should have happened:
- Nominet should have acknowledged that CyGlass was a flawed acquisition and should not have occurred
- It should have planned ahead and used the sale to announce a new Nominet acquisition policy that clarifies its position over commercial ventures
- It should have published the minutes of previous Board discussions that have previously been withheld under “commercial confidentiality” reasons to demonstrate that Nominet is acting professionally and conscientiously on its members’ behalf
- It should have assured members that there are additional financial controls in place that will prevent the payout of large sums and bonuses connected to an acquisition
- It should have provided some form of “lessons learnt” document and considered apologising to rebuild trust with members on this critical issue
The fact that Nominet failed to do any of these is a worrying sign that the organisation is still not able to admit to its mistakes or properly address its own internal flaws.
Here is what needs to happen going forward if Nominet is to properly reform itself and so avoid sleepwalking into another fierce internal conflict in a few years’ time:
- Take and provide comprehensive Board minutes that indicate the degree of thought and consideration that go into making decisions
- Publish minutes of Board Committee meetings, not just Board meetings
- Publish staff reports, redacted for commercial sensitivities where necessary, to demonstrate transparency and accountability
- Overhaul communications, consider how members will receive news and prepare honest answers to obvious questions in advance
- Hold member-engagement sessions around events such as this rather than generic Zoom meetings at short notice
- Be prepared to admit fault and to ask for forgiveness
CyGlass was a costly failure for Nominet; it could also be a valuable lesson.
---------
Nominet is a microcosm of our government.
