Ciprian can give you feedback on how the first UKRAC meeting went (and the lead up to it) if he wants, and I expect the minutes of the first meeting will be published in a while, but you know what minutes can be like (hello Nominet Board...) and they often don't tell the whole story. I thought I'd just give an update myself, because we were not elected for ourselves - we're meant to be representing Nominet Members and their concerns and views. The vote was democratic, so the basis is that we stand on our statements, but also trying to represent all members, not just the ones who elected us. Nevertheless, the 6 of us who were elected got the votes of people who had backed the Public Benefit campaign and the Resolution in March, and in my opinion we got those votes mainly because Simon Blackler endorsed us as the candidates who'd been vociferous or privately very supportive about the issues of that campaign.
In fact the election of the 6 UKRAC candidates was a landslide, because nearly all the supposed 'opponents' of the Resolution in March (you may remember the Nominet mass phone campaign) just evaporated and disappeared when it came to the UKRAC election. That mass phone call campaign by Nominet was in my view pretty much a disgrace. An unlevel playing field. Only they had the phone numbers. And I simply do not believe that the detail and justifications for the Resolution (that Simon proposed) were represented in those calls. My view is they probably said Nominet was in danger of being de-stabilised, but most engaged and informed people voted for the Resolution. And those people voted again in the UKRAC election, because yes, they were engaged and wanted to make sure that UKRAC wasn't captured by supporters of the Old Board, and the old status quo. And so we were elected.
But........ personally I don't regard this as anything to brag about! Firstly, because as I said in my election statements, I believe UKRAC was set up to contain, limit, funnel, and control member 'voice'. I still don't have confidence that it won't be used for PR appearances of engagement, but remain powerless. Time will tell. The other reason I don't 'big myself up' about being elected on to the UKRAC is that I could have been a porcupine but I would still have been elected because there were 2 seats in the 'small independent' sector, and only 2 of us stood for election. So it was an impossibility for Ciprian and me NOT to be elected. To be honest, I didn't really want to be involved in this at all, but I thought it was best not to leave the door open for Board/Executive apologists (and there were some candidates like that in the other sections) to take control of the Council and make it even more of a rubber stamp for Nominet. So here I am... not on merit but on the basis that nobody else could be assed to do it.
So this Council is about democracy, right? Members having a 'voice'?
Well, then we come to some issues:
1. Nominet decided to parachute in a Board Director, and imposed her as Chair of this 'democratic' Council.
2. The Nominet Director was given a vote, even though they were parachuted in and not elected to UKRAC.
Sorry, but that can't be right... so in the 2nd meeting we are planning to 'ASK' the Board to change the rules, so the people the members elected get to Chair their own Council and steer it... because as things stand, this Director Chair has the right to steer the meetings, close down discussion if it doesn't stick to what the Board allows us to discuss, and even has powers to shut a meeting down if this Chair does not think we should be discussing something that Nominet has defined as 'off topic'.
I have strongly argued to insist on this change, though I think one or two of my colleagues wanted to be more conciliatory and 'not push the Board too soon'. I disagreed as did some others. Democracy is democracy, even if we are rulers of a more or less powerless kingdom. Maybe, hopefully, we can still try to influence or persuade. They will of course be selective about what advice they choose to listen to.
As for the right of the imposed Director to have a vote (when actually, as a member of the old 'remnant' Board they were a big part of the reason we got landslided in and none of that old Board of forum-deleters would have been elected, in fact just the opposite, because they collectively colluded in the direction Russell and Mark took the Company)... well at least 3 of us agree that we should also 'ASK' the Board, at our 2nd meeting, to remove the vote of this Director, and make her an observer instead. That would meet the functional purposes of her presence aka 'reporting back to the Board'. But not everyone on the Council is so sure.
But there are further concerns I have voiced:
3. The rules of the Board divide issues into 'on topic' subjects which we may discuss, and 'off topic' subjects which we should not discuss.
4. They cited Competition Law with advice on grounds of law NOT to veer onto the 'off topic' so-called not "permitted" subjects.
This is risible. It's risible attempt to control and limit the 'voice' of member opinion (I believe), so we don't discuss issues like the ones that the Public Benefit campaign had to raise, such as Governance and accountability of the Board (off topic)... acquisitions and expansion into other businesses (off topic)... we're meant to stick to the areas that Nominet wants us to discuss. Topics like these were quite rightly raised by Simon Blackler and hundreds of other members. If it was good that these subjects were raised, it remains good that we should be allowed to discuss what members want discussed now as well. Especially as the new Chair Andy Green says that there is Governance Change coming in 2022. What will that mean for members? Will it have longer term impact on prices, on accountability, on who has most influence?
I raised these two issues at the first meeting, and I hope I have got it on record that they won't impose these limits, but I'll wait to see the minutes. And also, there will be an issue of how the Executive reacts if we add a contentious 'off topic' subject to a meeting agenda, or start to discuss it (at which point our paracuted in Director Chair can close down the discussion or the meeting).
Now I admit I am a bit confrontational. There are conciliators on the UKRAC who want to give the Board a chance, and hope/believe they have changed since March, and I 'get' their position but I'm afraid I'm the 'bad cop' and I clash a bit with one or two colleagues. I simply don't believe the Nominet Board and Executive have earned our trust. You get things by pushing. Don't push and they'll get away with as much control as they can, in my opinion. And change has to be proved over time... meanwhile, only a few months ago, that old (in my view) renegade Board were deleting the forum, steering the ship full-steam towards a profit-making expansion and acquisition future (except their acquisition/ventures project wasn't making profit... CyGlass, Automated Cars, and White Space Spectrum have set Nominet back £7.5 million and CyGlass is still haemorrhaging money). This was the direction the Board and Executive were taking Nominet just months ago... and then there was the way they handled the lead up to the EGM, and the pro-Board video on the voting page, and the 500 sheets of addresses sent to Simon when an email would have been far more helpful. Does the leopard change its spots, or do you have to push and push, to get information, to get responses, to get change?
(continued...)
