As we approach the Web Meeting between Company Members and the Chair/CEO of Nominet on May 6th, what do we expect from this meeting?
Will more members be invited to appear visually on screen and comment freely, rather than having selected questions filtered through a Nominet host who reads out the questions?
Will the Nominet leadership “allow” free and open speech from members, or will they use process to filter and control input, and prevent any response, reaction, dialogue?
What else do we know at this point?
We know that both CEO and Chair have avoided answering questions about how much money was lost on Automated Cars and White Space Spectrum, including additional costs like staffing, legal advice, development. They clearly know how much the business cost them but they have declined to disclose that so far.
We also know that both of them have declined to reveal the overall cost of CyGlass (including set up, running costs, staffing, etc), and what return the Company has had so far for this expenditure.
We also know that Nominet is likely to have ‘bid low’ on what they will accept as return for running TLD back-end services (because to secure these contracts throughout the industry, it tends to be a race to the bottom to get the business). What we don’t know is the total outlay (including all staffing, legal work, extras, overheads, ongoing payments) and what return the Company has had so far. All this info is hidden from sight. In this area, some generalised financial overview may be necessary, but as competent leaders they must know roughly what’s gone out and what has come in so far. Collectively, for these back-end contracts, they have declined to give Company Members any idea of the current status and how much the Company is ‘down’ at this moment.
In response to my enquiries, I gave Ellie and Rob ample time and opportunity to answer any or all of 17 questions on these topics. They failed to answer a single one. I had hoped we could discuss the losses on May 6th, but because of their evasion of the details, we just don’t know how much was lost on each of these four areas of venture. The facts are hidden.
That is frankly shocking.
Even overall sums spent/returned in each area would be a start. Any competent company tracks figures like these. Will they engage and disclose them? Will they also accept responsibility for these losses where they have occurred?
On 28th April, Rob Binns (Acting Chair) wrote (scroll to foot of page): “We also intend to share some further information around the non .UK business in the next upcoming members call on May 6th.”
What does “some” mean? Does it include information on what has actually been lost to date on each of these four investment areas?
Finally: I’ve detailed one subject area for discussion, where I’ve got Rob to commit to “further information”. Others will have other topics of concern.
What other questions and topics do members want raised at this meeting?
Will more members be invited to appear visually on screen and comment freely, rather than having selected questions filtered through a Nominet host who reads out the questions?
Will the Nominet leadership “allow” free and open speech from members, or will they use process to filter and control input, and prevent any response, reaction, dialogue?
What else do we know at this point?
We know that both CEO and Chair have avoided answering questions about how much money was lost on Automated Cars and White Space Spectrum, including additional costs like staffing, legal advice, development. They clearly know how much the business cost them but they have declined to disclose that so far.
We also know that both of them have declined to reveal the overall cost of CyGlass (including set up, running costs, staffing, etc), and what return the Company has had so far for this expenditure.
We also know that Nominet is likely to have ‘bid low’ on what they will accept as return for running TLD back-end services (because to secure these contracts throughout the industry, it tends to be a race to the bottom to get the business). What we don’t know is the total outlay (including all staffing, legal work, extras, overheads, ongoing payments) and what return the Company has had so far. All this info is hidden from sight. In this area, some generalised financial overview may be necessary, but as competent leaders they must know roughly what’s gone out and what has come in so far. Collectively, for these back-end contracts, they have declined to give Company Members any idea of the current status and how much the Company is ‘down’ at this moment.
In response to my enquiries, I gave Ellie and Rob ample time and opportunity to answer any or all of 17 questions on these topics. They failed to answer a single one. I had hoped we could discuss the losses on May 6th, but because of their evasion of the details, we just don’t know how much was lost on each of these four areas of venture. The facts are hidden.
That is frankly shocking.
Even overall sums spent/returned in each area would be a start. Any competent company tracks figures like these. Will they engage and disclose them? Will they also accept responsibility for these losses where they have occurred?
On 28th April, Rob Binns (Acting Chair) wrote (scroll to foot of page): “We also intend to share some further information around the non .UK business in the next upcoming members call on May 6th.”
What does “some” mean? Does it include information on what has actually been lost to date on each of these four investment areas?
Finally: I’ve detailed one subject area for discussion, where I’ve got Rob to commit to “further information”. Others will have other topics of concern.
What other questions and topics do members want raised at this meeting?
