Can someone please give a little bit more context for people out of the loop? It’s confusing to understand who stands for what (board of .uk, that company, the ex BBC dude) and what is/was going on.
The campaign proposed a vote (EGM) on removing 5 board members and putting in two well respected veterans (Sir Michael Lyons and Axel Pawlik) to help steward the organization back to its core mission of running a registry and giving profits to charity instead of raising executive salaries and trying to be a tech company (Nominet tried to do things like self-driving cars and spectrum management, which all failed and lost money).
The campaign was a success despite Nominet spending (millions?) spreading FUD about how government would intervene and it would be a disaster. 5 board members were removed including the CEO (who resigned one day before - what a pathetic way to go). The remaining board then decided to put one removed board member as the interim ceo (yeah, wtf? members literally just voted her out). And now they are ignoring the second half of what the whole campaign was about, reforming the organization, they aren't bringing in Sir Michael Lyons and Axel Pahlik, instead they feel capable to recruit their own.
I'd bet a second EGM coming to remove the rest of the board which continues to spit in the face of its members and ignore their wishes.
Sir Michael Lyons wrote a report on Nominet some years ago. The Nominet board basically ignored all his recommendations, though his report was widely supported by the membership.
Axel Pawlik was head of RIPE, which is an Internet membership organisation with a good relationship with its members and a reputation for doing worthwhile things for the benefit of the Internet as a whole.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Internet_registry
The current board is made up of many vested interests, hence the resistance for change.
The Nominet saga seems to be, roughly, split between small UK members (activists unhappy with Nominet's leadership/direction), and larger overseas members (GoDaddy etc) who seem to back the status quo.
I don't think that it is known whether Google voted or abstained, but their vote would have had some clout, given the way voting rights are weighted to size of members. Perhaps Nominet's continued deafness to the activists suggests that they are confident of big-hitter support in the event of a second EGM.
Re the ex-BBC dude, another Telegraph piece [3] gives info on his stance and his background.
The Telegraph link will hit a paywall unless you turn off JS. Alternatively, the first piece was archived four weeks ago [2], and the second is available at [4].
[1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2021/03/14/google-dra...
[3] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/01/30/former-bbc-c...
EDIT TO ADD: As per child comment by ohashi, this link to the vote outcome on the campaign site is informative: https://publicbenefit.uk/#support Also, as ohashi helpfully points out, "You can see Google abstained. GoDaddy and 1&1 support the status quo. Tucows, NameCheap supported the removal of the board."
Thanks for that.
You can see Google abstained. GoDaddy and 1&1 support the status quo. Tucows, NameCheap supported the removal of the board.
Sir Michael has form for not delivering the answers he was hired to deliver, so the outcome of his report for Nominet is no surprise to me. I think the man is allergic to whitewash[3].
[1] - https://www.theregister.com/2016/02/05/michael_lyons_tells_n...
[2] - https://publicbenefit.uk/resources/Sir-Michael-Lyons-Report-...
[3] - I worked with Sir Michael on his Lyons Inquiry into Local Government, so this admittedly anecdotal evidence is at least first-hand anecdotal evidence.