UKRAC

[ukbackorder]

It's 'advisory'. There are no 'hands' for it to fall into. Everything decided and talked about can be (and will if need be) totally ignored if Nominet deem it not in the best interest for the company. But hey - we had the chance of a second EGM and chose to do it their way.. too late now. That'll be the cry.

'The UKRAC is established as an advisory body only and does not have executive powers.'

 

[monaghan]

Why wouldn't they?

OK, I'll bite, explain to me what benefit it would bring to a small business to put forward someone to sit on a Nominet committee just to be a yes man? I can see it being a "jolly" to an employee of a large registrar in a similar way that a NED "appears" to be handed around the big players and used as part of a bonus system, but a small business would be much less able to afford a jolly and is far more likely to either not suggest anyone stand or actually put someone forward who has a genuine interest.

Without "the little guys" giving input, the domain deletion policy would have most probably ended up with the "big guys" backing automated transfer to auction platform after the suspend phase with only the dross that nobody sees value in being left to the usual drop cycle effectively handing the secondary market over to a few large registrars.

It's actually quite enlightening to sit in a meeting and see how the big guys play ball with Nominet, you should try it sometime!

 

[ukbackorder]

Ok I detect this is turning a little hostile. We don't all share the same opinions. You're an optimist. I am a pragmatist. I look at how they've acted since I joined in about 2001. So far there is nothing to indicate to me that this is any different to the past. Ultimately they financially benefit (personally I'm sure) from some decisions. They are still not going to give anyone the option to stop any of the decisions they want to make. In fact it's not even a couple of months since they totally ignored a democratic wish and started to negate changes they were *forced* to make. I'm out of this conversation now as my personal opinion has no bearing on what you're all ultimately going to do but if we're going to play a game of 'my meetings are bigger than your meetings' I think we've reached the end of the conversation

 

[monaghan]

Well with that over, back to the original question, anyone up for standing?

 

[webber]

Well with that over, back to the original question, anyone up for standing?

I think this is a role for some of you that have been vocal and have supported the EGM and have been members for years and years and know the games Nominet has played in the past. I'm thinking Andrew Bennett, @xdnet , @deluxedomains , @Siusaidh , @gregfindley , if they have the time
Also see https://discourse.hostmasters.uk/t/ukrac-nominations-open/406

 

[Siusaidh]

Agreed, we need to get Nominet back to being a registry and loose all the spin off's.

Alex, I've sent you a pm.

 

[xdnet]

I think this is a role for some of you that have been vocal and have supported the EGM and have been members for years and years and know the games Nominet has played in the past. I'm thinking Andrew Bennett, @xdnet , @deluxedomains , @Siusaidh , @gregfindley , if they have the time
Also see https://discourse.hostmasters.uk/t/ukrac-nominations-open/406

I do indeed plan to stand currently.

I see this as the pragmatic approach, being part of the discussion. Hopefully not being bound by the usual legal duties and employment contract as with NEDs, the UKRAC members _should_ be more free to be honest, and publicly engage on the issues openly.

 

[CreativeMix]

Eleanor Bradley has been given a massive opportunity to move the company back to its core values and in so doing make her interim CEO position permanent. The fact she hasn't shows a serious lack of business acumen/cunning and epitomises the poor quality of the executive team at Nominet.

 

[Siusaidh]

At this juncture, I think the Board has a final opportunity to rebuild trust, if they appoint Nigel Titley as Chair. That wouldn't solve the mistrust of the existing Board, but it would be a beginning. Personally I believe it would be better if the UKRAC concept was scrapped, and members were consulted on a range of ways in which they can ensure their views are represented.

As things stand, there is such profound lack of trust in this 'remnant' Board, that I suggest it is a reasonable working assumption that they are playing the medium/long game - essentially playing for time - so they can regroup and consolidate their controlling clique, and its close relationship with the top few favoured customers.

At present they are trying to lull and placate members, in the hope of winning back some middle ground, as well as basically exhausting everyone with endless 'listening processes' etc.

But once they've firmed up their power, I very much suspect they would like to change the whole governance set up, dislocate members from registrars, and probably change the voting caps in favour of their largest customers.

I would love to see Nigel appointed Chair, and I'd like to think their motives were genuine, but on past record there are few reasons to trust them.

So we shall see.

Personally I take my lead from Simon Blackler, because he had the courage to put himself on the line, and I feel he holds the moral high ground - certainly compared to the Nominet Board.

 

[webber]

I do indeed plan to stand currently.

Great stuff, Dan! Hopefully you will coordinate this with Simon so that you have the full support of PublicBenefit.
I'm sure an email from him recommending members who to vote in the RAC will go a long way.
I assume you would fall in the mid/smaller registrars category, so we still need two candidates for secondary market category.
Susannah, I think this is where you could step in?

Again, this is not because we agree with the proposed UKRAC or because we all of the sudden think this board is actually going to do anything good, but rather so that we don't let these seats fall in the hands of people who could do more harm

 

[Siusaidh]

I take my lead entirely from Simon, because I don't think it's optimal to work at cross purposes. You are correct in your analysis that there need to be two candidates who are clearly in the 'third category' described as members who basically use their membership to register domains for themselves, and who oppose the performance and continuation of the 'remnant' Board implacably. Anyone here in that category?

Just to mention, Cyprian, that my personal view is that you are one of the people I trust most because of your implacable critique of the Nominet Board. You really 'get' the issues. I would happily nominate you.

These things are being discussed, obviously, so drop me a private message, Cyprian, for a conversation.

 

[xdnet]

Great stuff, Dan! Hopefully you will coordinate this with Simon so that you have the full support of PublicBenefit.
I'm sure an email from him recommending members who to vote in the RAC will go a long way.
I assume you would fall in the mid/smaller registrars category, so we still need two candidates for secondary market category.
Susannah, I think this is where you could step in?

Again, this is not because we agree with the proposed UKRAC or because we all of the sudden think this board is actually going to do anything good, but rather so that we don't let these seats fall in the hands of people who could do more harm

I have let Simon know now, I haven't asked for his endorsement but certainly wouldn't say no

My election statement does make clear that I stand by the PublicBenefit.uk goals and principals however, and I will focus on transparency and policies which actually make sense for registrars to implement!

I did select the mid/smaller registrar category on the application, technically I do hold way too many domains in my own portfolio but the fact I've yet to figure out how to sell them tells me clearly it's not my segment to represent

 

[webber]

The list of candidates for the UKRAC has now been published:
https://www.nominet.uk/corporate-governance/uk-registry-advisory-council/

@Siusaidh and I are standing in Secondary market (Independent) category which is probably what this forum mostly comprises of.
It would appear that, as the only two candidates for this category, our place is secured, though that is not yet confirmed.

We are both strong believers in the PublicBenefit cause and have been very vocal during the EGM campaign.
It will now be extremely important for you to vote for other candidates who are also aligned to these principles and wish to return Nominet to it's original purpose of running the UK registry.
So please, firstly take the time to vote, and secondly vote for one of the these Public Benefit supporters:
Rex Wickham and Arnaud Franquinet in the Large registrars category
Andrew Bennett (@Whois-Search) and Dan Rodgers (@xdnet ) in the Mid - Small registrars segment

As mentioned before, our participation in these elections is not because we approve or agree with the decisions taken by the Boards so far since the EGM, but rather so that we don't let these seats fall in the hands of candidates who could otherwise support the Board in sustaining this commercial / profit-driven culture in a nonprofit membership organisation.

 

[Siusaidh]

The way it's turned out, Cyprian and I are probably not needing the votes (unless you want to) but it would be great if those who support Public Benefit campaign and want Nominet returned to its original registry function would consider voting for any or all of Rex (TwentyTwenty), Arnaud (for Gandi who voted YES at the EGM), Andrew (Netistrar) who has tirelessly called out the problems at Nominet, and Dan (XDNet) who has provided the forum platform for continuing the struggle for better standards, and has backed Public Benefit campaign throughout.

The point being that Cyprian and I are not in need of people's votes, but these other 4 are, if we are to get a majority on the UKRAC and stop it being occupied by people who back the status quo. So I fully endorse Rex, Arnaud, Andrew, and Dan.

Hopefully we can get 6/6 seats to strongly voice the case for change, and I have also put the case today for the elected Members to choose their own Chair to this council (because Nominet at present say they want to impose a Director as Chair, which is simply not acceptable. And also, I argued the case today for the new Members' Forum to be moderated by members not Nominet Staff, and for the right of the UKRAC to run its own Social Media platforms. Point being, this Council mustn't be sock puppets anonymous, it must be willing to call the Board and Executive out when needed.

One last thing. Ashley from Tucows is also standing, and I have to say (because I've known Elliot Noss and Tucows since 2000 and believe in their values, and they sided with Simon Blackler in the EGM vote)... she has pressed the case today for the UKRAC to determine its own future, and she would likely support reform.

However, it's the 6 of us who have set out to get elected, and looks like 2 of us get a free pass. 2 more for a majority of YES voters.

 

[webber]

Today between 2PM - 3:30PM Nominet is hosting a "Meet the UKRAC Candidates" webinar
More info here: https://members.nominet.uk/membersh...k-registry-advisory-council-candidates-ukrac/
And register here: https://r1.dotdigital-pages.com/p/4CYI-GJX/registration-form

 

[webber]

You should have received an email from CES with instructions on how to vote.
For each of the three categories you can select multiple candidates in order of preference.
Please do take the time to vote, ideally for candidates who have publicly supported the EGM and the PublicBenefit campaign:

 

[diablo]

Voted.

Voting closes at 17:00pm (BST) on Thursday 22 July 2021.

 

[aZooZa]

Done.

 

[Siusaidh]

If you haven’t yet voted in the UK Registry Advisory Council election, an email should have just landed with the subject “REMINDER: Nominet UK - Nominet - UKRAC Elections 2021” from CES. Please click the link in that email and vote if you want to (!). It takes about 30 seconds.

I realise that many feel a huge amount of scepticism about this Council. I do too, and I've warned it's in many ways a trap, an attempt by Nominet to create the sham appearance of engagement with members, while at the same time denying it much in the way of power... more like trying to 'contain' member dissent and filter it and control it. They have even parachuted in a Board member to be a voting member of the Council and imposed that director as Chair, which is totally inacceptable.

Six of us have kind of teamed up (as supporters of the Public Benefit Campaign) to try to make sure at least the Council doesn't fall into the hands of Nominet apologists and sock puppets. We don't get paid for any of this. But we hope to at least make it some kind of 'voice' that's willing to publicly critique, and my view is we need to demand the right to choose the Chair, the right to appoint who moderates the new members' forum, and the right to publish dissenting views on social media and on the Members' Hub.

Personally I think the whole Board should be replaced with people who are actually trusted. Anyway I do understand if you're entirely sceptical about this Council - you have good reasons to be. However, I hope some will 'get' that it's better to try to get an 'opposition' in place than Nominet apologists. The real challenge will be building ways for members to get their voices published on a formal platform inside Nominet. I'm fine if you do or don't choose to vote for me (because Ciprian and I are by some fluke the only two candidates for the two 'Independent' seats, so barring Nominet shenanigans we get in anyway). But a mandate would be good and in particular votes for the people listed above by Ciprian (or click here).

My own site is here, with the personal stuff here, what I think the new UKRAC should do here, and my deeper views on Nominet here.

Please at least consider voting for Ciprian, Dan, Andrew, Rex, and Arnaud who I know from correspondence are committed to making sure critical voices are not filtered out. Personally I have a positive view of Ashley at Tucows too. Anyway, your choice, and I respect those who don't want to vote as well. I get that. I'd just like to see a Council that is at least publicly challenging and awkward.

 

[Siusaidh]

Today's the last day to vote in the UKRAC election (until 5pm).

I don't need to ask for your votes myself (because I'm already effectively elected - only 2 candidates in my section for the 2 seats)... but I encourage you to make sure you get people elected who will not just be compliant with the Nominet management (see Public Benefit supporters detailed earlier in this thread).

I know many of us think this UKRAC concept was set up by the Board/Executive to give the 'appearance' of engagement for PR reasons, but really using it as a means of controlling and filtering members' voice. That's also my view. For that reason, I have set the Nominet leadership 3 TESTS, to demonstrate and make sure the new Council is self-determining, democratic, and gets its voice published on the Nominet site:

I've written to the Board (for forwarding to Andy Green, and copying in Simon Blackler, without whom none of this 'change' would have kicked off...) Let's see how Andy Green, the new Chair, responds:

1. The first item on the agenda of the first UKRAC meeting should be the election of who the elected Council members want to choose as their Chairman (incidentally, that will not be me, just so you know I am not jockeying for that). As things stand Nominet says it will impose a Board director top down on the Council as its Chair. That is clearly totally unacceptable.

2. The Board/Executive to set an early date for the re-introduction of the Members' Forum, and UKRAC to be given responsibility (as the elected representation of members) for deciding who should moderate it (members), and how it should operate - with the Forum accessible on the members' Hub. The Board/Executive also to commit to collective responsiveness to questions raised on the Forum, if moderators flag them up (with member endorsement) as important. Real engagement needs to be 'two way' and not just 'one way informative'.

3. UKRAC must have the right to its own section on the Members' Hub, with freedom to post its own reports, minutes, and commentary. Up until now, the Members' Hub has been criticised for being a 'one way' information stream from Nominet. That needs to be broadened out, so there is a platform for UKRAC to provide member input (along with wider member input via a forum).

There are other issues that will need addressing, including a review of the proposed 'terms of reference' of UKRAC: to be clear, there must be no limits on what elected UKRAC members discuss (Nominet has already tried to limit this).