Will dotMobi shut down?

[Andres Kello]

Can someone explain the compliance of the following quote with the testify mentioned in Andres´ and Gogo´s latest posts, please?

We're referring to the period 2007-2008 (as per the financial report), Vance is referring to the present. Unless Vance was referring to the immediate present, 2008-2009 must have been a better year for the company (although not necessarily for .mobi), which we should see reflected in the upcoming financial report gogo mentioned.

If that's the case, it is quite revealing that the company made a profit in 2008-2009 but a loss in 2007-2008 when you consider there were 25% less registrations (e.g. domain revenue) in 2008-2009 compared to the same period in 2007-2008. That means there was either some serious cost-cutting in 2008-2009 or some significant new revenue stream(s) outside of the .mobi domain (or both).

The upcoming Webinar and financial report will hopefully provide more clarity.

[Accent]

The landrush regs were in 2006 and were for two years, thus did not create income in 07-08.

[blitzpotz]

We're referring to the period 2007-2008 (as per the financial report), Vance is referring to the present. Unless Vance was referring to the immediate present, 2008-2009 was clearly a better year for the company (although not necessarily for .mobi), which we should see reflected in the upcoming financial report gogo mentioned.

If that's the case, it is quite revealing that the company made a profit in 2008-2009 but a loss in 2007-2008 when you consider there were 25% less registrations (e.g. domain revenue) in 2008-2009 compared to the same period in 2007-2008. That means there was either some serious cost-cutting in 2008-2009 or some significant new revenue stream(s) outside of the .mobi domain (or both).

The upcoming Webinar and financial report will hopefully provide more clarity.

Thanks Andres.
I would have assumed that the year 2008-2009 cannot be profitable just regarding the company´s income from known reg numbers plus results of the last premium name auction versus cost of the development of Instant Mobilizer plus the cost for the company´s large staff mentioned in this thread. However, I don´t know their whole business of course.

[vikrantjain22]

For info, I obtained a copy of Dotmobi / MTLD 's most recent Articles of Association from http://www.cro.ie/ for 2.5 Euros. You can buy it there or download it here.

For anyone not familiar with this kind of thing, this is the governing document for the organisation, a bit like a constitution for a state, and sets out the framework for it to operate. A company has a board of directors who set policy and objectives for the company staff; the directors are ultimately responsible for the company and must make public their age, address, and other directorships. People trying to influence a company can and do contact the board of directors to influence their decisions about company policy; this is normal and sensible, since staff may be more focussed on day to day targets and tasks and less on the wider role of the company in society or the ethics of operating in particular countries or markets.

If you want the overall Irish legislation, you want the Irish Companies Act: http://www.formacompany.ie/companies...990-index.html

Thanks for the info, Repped

[gogo]

The landrush regs were in 2006 and were for two years, thus did not create income in 07-08.

Good point.

I thought I'd have a look at the 2006-2007 accounts for comparison. They are not there - either they were never filed or the official cro.ie site has not published them, which seems unlikely as they list 90 documents available for this company. (Accounts for 2005-2006 are in fact available there.)

http://www.cro.ie/search yields this info on MTLD:

Next AR Date 21/08/2009

The 'Next AR Date' refers to the statutory Annual Return Date (ARD). This is a date after 1 March 2002 to which an annual return should be made up. If a company has annual returns outstanding for previous years the obligation to file these returns is a continuing one.

Vance is referring to the present. Unless Vance was referring to the immediate present, 2008-2009 must have been a better year for the company (although not necessarily for .mobi), which we should see reflected in the upcoming financial report gogo mentioned.

Vance said this:

The .mobi registry – that’s to say, the dotMobi company – is bigger than 95% of the world’s ccTLD registries. The .mobi domain registry is already profitable, given our size.

It would help to be absolutely certain that in that statement "the .mobi domain registry" means the same as "the Dotmobi company", ie that the domain registry is not measured as a profitable sub-business within a larger, broader company.

[DomainTalker]

I'd be very interested in your analysis or comments on the contents of this report.

I took a screenshot of the balance sheet for anyone wanting to have a quick look:

Thanks, gogo, for posting this. I hadn't seen it before.


Whilst this is an Abridged Balance Sheet - and not a Profit & Loss account - these figures indicate that dotmobi is profitable, and solvent. That's good.


But, a lot of things are coming into focus for me now.

...It may be that this organisation was NOT set up to do what I thought it was.


(i) Dotmobi (mTLD) - A Small Company

I'd suggest these figures show that dotmobi is a very small company. And, like most small companies, it relies heavily upon its trading revenue (.mobi registrations, in the main) to fund its ongoing strategies, and growth. Its hard to tell from these figures whether dotmobi is carrying debt - but, I suspect that it isn't (or very little).


What the Balance Sheet reveals is that dotmobi is - and always has been - seriously under capitalised to establish a global brand for the .mobi extension....Net assets of 4.1 million Euro is tiny. Net revenue is (relatively) similarly small. A minnow.

...And, absolutely NOT in a position to drive global growth for this extension.


(ii) The Backers - and, their Intentions

This Balance Sheet also suggests, imo, that, if the biggest names in the business (the backers) had originally intended .mobi to be the global default extension for all mobile, then, they would have planned for, and provided, on an ongoing basis, MUCH more funding over, say the crucial first 3-5 years (and promoted their own .mobi's), so that a global awareness campaign to achieve global dominance for the .mobi brand would have been possible.

They didn't provide that capital. And, they aren't. According to that balance sheet.

It appears that they only provided enough seed capital to launch dotmobi - but not much more.....So, the aims of mTLD must have been limited aims.


(iii) Has being a Mobile Web Educator/Facilitator been the main mTLD game, all along?

This skinny balance sheet would explain why dotmobi appears to be positioning itself as a Mobile Web Educator/Facilitator (through its tools) - rather than the driver of the biggest brand extension (.mobi) into the mobile arena.


This funding/revenue profile looks to me that the real game for dotmobi (and may have been all along) is to be a provider of mobile tools to educate about, & facilitate, the mobile web - and that the .mobi extension was designed simply as the cash cow to fund it (via registrations).


ie....This has been about Mobile Web Education/Facilitation, supported by the .mobi extension - not the other way around.


...Hence the focus on an ever-widening array of tools - and almost zero focus on marketing the .mobi brand, and on Compliance....ie the brand .Mobi, itself, isn't dotmobi's (nor their backer's) main game. And, never was.


This may explain the hitherto inexplicable (imo) silence from dotmobi about dotmobi's reluctance to widely market the brand. Its not the priority.

Dotmobi has simply always been under capitalised for that job...

...But, they do have sufficient funds (from registrations) to drive Mobile Web Education & Facilitation objectives.


(iv) Compliance Enforcement - Not a priority?

Further, I'd suggest this Balance Sheet severely constrains what's realistically possible on Compliance enforcement. Enforcing Compliance across tens of '000's (millions?) of sites requires massive manpower & tech resources.

Very expensive.....These figures would suggest Dotmobi was never originally financially structured (nor is today) to do that on any serious scale.


(v) In Short..


What we may have here is:


* A small, tech-focused, company, whose primary reason for being is to be a Mobile Web Educator/Facilitator. And, always was.

* Its backers supported that aim to expand their own market objectives - and, funded it to a level that would establish that.....And .mobi domain registrations provide the ongoing cash flow to achieve it.


And...


* mobi Brand development, Compliance enforcement, and global marketing/awareness, may well be secondary objectives - funding permitted.



If so, this is quite different to what I understood the objectives of mTLD, & the Backers of .mobi, to be at the launch in 2006/7:


...ie .mobi as the global default mobile brand, and gateway + mobile tools to assist + Compliance to provide the Trustmark & credibility to make that default gateway a great user experience, every time.



Personally, I didn't invest in 15 of the very best premium .mobi domains + hundreds of .mobi keyword domains, to promote a generic mobile web concept.

I invested in a domain brand that I thought had the firepower behind it - and, the WILL - to apply every possible method to establish it as the dominant mobile brand on the web, as a fundamental priority - and, part of gaining acceptance for it would be the (widely-known) guarantee of a great mobile user experience.

.

[jaybee]

.

[Tim]

This webinar is going to be very interesting and telling. I've been saying for a little bit now that mTLD seems more like a software company and not a registry. I understand that just pushing a tld might be a little one dimensional in the context of the mobile web and everything that it now seems to mean, but that is the first and foremost function of a REGISTRY. If the REGISTRY wants to branch out and push a mobile web agenda, then maybe the REGISTRY should create a subsidiary to do that and leave elevating the value of the tld to the REGISTRY.

In case you missed it, I think the REGISTRY has left the track.

There is definitely something happening behind the scenes that will help boost .mobi awareness & lots more... I know this because I am building it but I can't say much right now.

do tell!

[jaybee]

do tell!

All in good time, Tim.

[Pred]

thanks gogo, and tim.
good posts.

dt.............. your post was suberb and bang on the money in many points
you have been ******

[Scandiman]

rep+ DT for some good, structured analysis.

(i) Dotmobi (mTLD) - A Small Company

I'd suggest these figures show that dotmobi is a very small company. And, like most small companies, it relies heavily upon its trading revenue (.mobi registrations, in the main) to fund its ongoing strategies, and growth. Its hard to tell from these figures whether dotmobi is carrying debt - but, I suspect that it isn't (or very little).


What the Balance Sheet reveals is that dotmobi is - and always has been - seriously under capitalised to establish a global brand for the .mobi extension....Net assets of 4.1 million Euro is tiny. Net revenue is (relatively) similarly small. A minnow.

...And, absolutely NOT in a position to drive global growth for this extension.

Very glad you see this now, while they can do more to market the extension, they don't have the resources for global conventional marketing. The backers aren't rich uncles with open checkbooks. And nor is domain registrations going to generate enough revenue to justify it either. Assuming for a moment that one reg earns them $10 on average, driving awareness to grow registrations by a million brings in merely $10,000,000 which is a drop in the bucket for global marketing, or even nationwide US marketing for that matter. That's not to say another million registrations isn't a worthwhile objective, but they've got to go about it differently.

They also have other revenue streams though (device atlas and instant mobilizer) which suggests that the rev from domains alone is only a portion of what this document suggests, making domains less of a motivator for growth.

(ii) The Backers - and, their Intentions

This Balance Sheet also suggests, imo, that, if the biggest names in the business (the backers) had originally intended .mobi to be the global default extension for all mobile, then, they would have planned for, and provided, on an ongoing basis, MUCH more funding over, say the crucial first 3-5 years (and promoted their own .mobi's), so that a global awareness campaign to achieve global dominance for the .mobi brand would have been possible.

They didn't provide that capital. And, they aren't. According to that balance sheet.

It appears that they only provided enough seed capital to launch dotmobi - but not much more.....So, the aims of mTLD must have been limited aims.

This was pretty obvious to me TBH, consider the full story of .mobi's early days: Nokia tried to work it solo and couldn't get it past ICANN so they brought in some other big brands to support the concept and got it through. The brand names were first and foremost about getting ICANN approval, not about growing the extension to be the biggest thing on the planet. This was the pattern for new domains in general, to demonstrate to ICANN a general industry backing for a new extension but after that remains to be seen.

(iii) Has being a Mobile Web Educator/Facilitator been the main mTLD game, all along?

This skinny balance sheet would explain why dotmobi appears to be positioning itself as a Mobile Web Educator/Facilitator (through its tools) - rather than the driver of the biggest brand extension (.mobi) into the mobile arena.


This funding/revenue profile looks to me that the real game for dotmobi (and may have been all along) is to be a provider of mobile tools to educate about, & facilitate, the mobile web - and that the .mobi extension was designed simply as the cash cow to fund it (via registrations).


ie....This has been about Mobile Web Education/Facilitation, supported by the .mobi extension - not the other way around.


...Hence the focus on an ever-widening array of tools - and almost zero focus on marketing the .mobi brand, and on Compliance....ie the brand .Mobi, itself, isn't dotmobi's (nor their backer's) main game. And, never was.


This may explain the hitherto inexplicable (imo) silence from dotmobi about dotmobi's reluctance to widely market the brand. Its not the priority.

Dotmobi has simply always been under capitalised for that job...

...But, they do have sufficient funds (from registrations) to drive Mobile Web Education & Facilitation objectives.

The evidence of dev.mobi, ready.mobi, DeviceAtlas and instant mobilizer suggest you're correct about mTLD's priorities, and regrettably all of them (other than instant mobilizer and mobithinking) significantly contribute to .mobi's competition as well. But there's a part of this where a pioneering company needs to contribute to growing an ecosystem in order to profit from it. Getting that balance right is a tricky proposition.

(iv) Compliance Enforcement - Not a priority?

Further, I'd suggest this Balance Sheet severely constrains what's realistically possible on Compliance enforcement. Enforcing Compliance across tens of '000's (millions?) of sites requires massive manpower & tech resources.

Very expensive.....These figures would suggest Dotmobi was never originally financially structured (nor is today) to do that on any serious scale.

Compliance was clearly a priority in the beginning, and can and should be an automated process, but no matter how you look at it, compliance does represent a cost center for the company and from that perspective alone I understand the desire of mTLD to get rid of it. But since compliance is the one structural differentiator for the extension in the marketplace it seems quite short sighted and expedient to simply drop it altogether and with it the main .mobi value proposition.

(v) In Short..


What we may have here is:


* A small, tech-focused, company, whose primary reason for being is to be a Mobile Web Educator/Facilitator. And, always was.

* Its backers supported that aim to expand their own market objectives - and, funded it to a level that would establish that.....And .mobi domain registrations provide the ongoing cash flow to achieve it.


And...


* mobi Brand development, Compliance enforcement, and global marketing/awareness, may well be secondary objectives - funding permitted.



If so, this is quite different to what I understood the objectives of mTLD, & the Backers of .mobi, to be at the launch in 2006/7:


...ie .mobi as the global default mobile brand, and gateway + mobile tools to assist + Compliance to provide the Trustmark & credibility to make that default gateway a great user experience, every time.



Personally, I didn't invest in 15 of the very best premium .mobi domains + hundreds of .mobi keyword domains, to promote a generic mobile web concept.

I invested in a domain brand that I thought had the firepower behind it - and, the WILL - to apply every possible method to establish it as the dominant mobile brand on the web, as a fundamental priority - and, part of gaining acceptance for it would be the (widely-known) guarantee of a great mobile user experience.

.

I would respectfully suggest you invested based on inaccurate assumptions about the backers and their relationship with mTLD and intentions for the .mobi extension. Personally I invested in .mobi primarily to build mobile web businesses on strong keyword brands. While I've made some profits on trading, it's all gone back into development and acquiring additional .mobi domain/brands for future development. Compliance was and is the main differentiator in what will soon be a sea of extensions, and it can either contribute to .mobi's dominance or obscurity, depending on how it's managed.

[Michael]

7 reasons why I am bearish on .MOBI

3 years after 9/26/2006 launch ---

1. Trustmark Abandonment

No public announcement. No apology. No more unique value proposition. Credibility lost.

2. “Investors” Abandonment

Besides Nokia, 3 years post launch, which “investors” promote .mobi?

3. Edelman Agency Abandonment

This sterling PR agency was the maestro orchestrating the launch, brand push – the catalyst largely responsible for the initial barn burner – they folded faster than a balsa wood beach chair in a Cat 5

4. dotMobi Talent Abandonment –

dotMobi VP, Amy (Glass) Mischler exited the dotMobi stage -- exceptional spokeswoman -- managed large brand accounts -- a primary public face of dotMobi -- a superstar, gone.

dotMobi CTO, Oxford educated, James Pearce walked away from dotMobi this month. “The brains” and a founding leader at dotMobi. A gritty entrepreneur, departed.


dotMobi CMO, David Ryder – this former ESPN Mobile exec slipped away.

Who will evacuate dotMobi next?

5. .MOBI Brand Abandonment

Lets look at the headlining slideshow on dotMobi’s home page – they flaunt .com













They ran this ad in the USA Today – But again, they spend time and advertising dollars promoting .com, not .mobi websites, for their mobile web initiatives –




dotMobi and .mobi are not the same – a decoupling took place -- they now ride 2 separate and distinct tracks --

6. Webinar disaster

Caroline, Vance & Pinky are talented and committed. But they, along with Trey – showed us nothing -- no slides. no charts. no game plan.

Show us, don’t tell.

Sadly, we heard a similar song sung to us before – do you remember this January 2008 Harvin spin, lipservice? and this Vance dance?

7. m. defeating .mobi

m. -- No investors. No guts. No plan.

But, many powerful friends – m.Google, m.Vodafone, m.Microsoft, m.Facebook, m.Twitter, m.YouTube, m.Yahoo, m.MySpace, m.eBay, m.NYPost, m.CNN, m.ESPNDeportes, etc.

Unfortunately, the market speaks, m. = mobile web

What is my plan?

No panic. No fire sale. Dropping 50%+ of my .mobi names.

And digesting lessons learned.

I am grateful I earned a net profit on .mobi developments/investments.

With a mobile-centric focus I look forward to participating in the mobile stream, smartbooks, mobile TV, etc –

And, I appreciate the connections here at Mobility, especially, my friendship with Mobineer whose class and intellect are striking --

I wish you all, wealth and happiness.

Michael

[Tim]

^^Great post^^
Rep+

[coast]

I do not think it is fair to imply that either James or Amy left because of mTLD. Both left only after family obligations caused them to relocate away from Dublin.

[Scandiman]

coast is correct about james and amy. They'll certainly be missed

[Mobineer]

Michael,

Super Post as always ----
no bitterness or rancor -- just the facts.

few rounds of mojitos or caiprinhas on me --

I had no idea Amy and James are no longer part of dotmobi

what concerns me most is Yahoo's new homepage set as default at m.yahoo.com -- they want us to use that search engine they (Microsoft and Yahoo ) want us to get used to that m...

The mobile web is vibrant, but I'm more bullish on mobile apps than sites ---

prediction: apps will surpass sites by 2018 - but what do I know?

except good whiskey or mojitos can soothe these mental wounds ---

will all be groovy with Dotmobi soon?

Don't think so...

but I do think Mobi still has a fighting chance --

keep in mind, the Celtic Tiger (Ireland) has been tamed -- the HQ of MTLD -- with massive unemployment and more foreclosures than South Florida --

do desperate times call for desperate measures?

They sure do -- that's why I have a bottle of Middleton Irish whisky on my desk --

well, at least it's not a revolver --- just a little Irish humor, folks ---

health, laughter, good fortune and wisdom to you all !
cheers, gulp....

[DomainTalker]

Michael...

As always, so focused, so factual, so clear in your thinking....Over the years, I've always made a point of reading any post you make.


Its not a pretty picture you paint.

The truth often isn't pretty.


As I posted in another thread yesterday:

"...I got a strong sense that dotmobi is struggling with strategy at the moment. They can't enforce a bedrock initial concept (compliance/Trustmark) - and, they can't afford to promote .mobi sufficiently to establish it as a global brand.

So, they appear to be positioning themselves firmly as Mobile Web Educators/Facilitators, instead.....A much more nebulous corporate positioning, imo.


Bottom line for me, is that I've moved the organisation, dotmobi, from 'central' to 'sideline', in the .mobi global positioning issue.


...Their tools are useful....And, if they do nothing specific to positively effect the .mobi brand from now on, I don't care; If they happen to do something great for the brand, then, that's a bonus.

The rest is down to me.

End of.... "


...Dotmobi, the organisation....'...from central to sideline...'.


Each of us now will make our way on our investments (using .mobi, or not - and, how), as we call it, as best we can.

.

[Maguire]

I must be stupid, I must of asked this question numerous times of what 33 stands for

It is actually the number of the all-time leading scorer in the NBA: Cream O'Doul JaBEER

Doc

[coast]

Michael, I answered last time from my phone and neglected to thank you for a well thought out assessment of the things that bother most people on this forum about the way some things are proceeding, especially with all of the emphasis on .com. DomainTalker has some excellent points, too.

I still stand by my statement that it is unfair to speculate why some people left .mobi, especially since one of the requirements of working at the top level of mTLD seems to be relocating to Dublin - fair enough to ask, but not so easy for some people to do.

[gogo]

As reported here http://mobility.mobi/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=125 MTLD had to file their 2008-2009 financial returns at cro.ie by 21 08 2009.

They haven't filed their financial return for 2008-2009. Instead, on 28 08 2009 they filed form B73, a REQUEST TO CHANGE A COMPANYS NARD.

http://www.cro.ie/search/submissions...er=398040&BI=C

If accepted, this request allows them to extend the company's return filing date by up to six months:

EXTENDING A COMPANIES ARD - FORM B73

Form B73 can be used to extend a company's ARD by up to six months, once in every five years. While a company may file a form B73 with its first annual return (required to be made up to the date that is six months from the date of incorporation), this is not recommended, as the effect is to reduce the period within which the company will be required to file its second annual return (to which accounts are required to be annexed) from 19 months post-incorporation to a maximum of 13 months post-incorporation. Furthermore, the company will have to wait until a period of five years has elapsed before it can utilise Form B73 again.

http://www.cro.ie/enb/2009_ezine.asp...5-72cb11f20232

[gogo]

As said( in this post http://mobility.mobi/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=125) MTLD's 2006-2007 financial return should be available at cro.ie and is not, with the likely explanation being that it was never filed. Is that serious?

http://www.cro.ie/en/annual-return-m...deadlines.aspx

Missed Deadline


Failure to file an annual return on time can have several consequences including the imposition of the late filing penalty, prosecution of the company and/or its directors, the loss of the audit exemption or the possible involuntary strike-off and dissolution of the company.
Late Filing Penalty

A late filing penalty of €100 becomes due in respect of an annual return on the day after the expiry of the filing deadline, which deadline is 28 days after the effective date of the return, with a daily penalty amount of €3 accruing thereafter, up to a maximum penalty of €1,200 per return. This penalty is in addition to the standard filing fee of €40 per return. Revenue have confirmed that late filing penalties are not tax deductible.
The late filing penalty is only waived in certain particular circumstances. See Penalty Waiver. Please see also Link to Late Filing Penalty Calculator.
Prosecution

In addition, an on-the-spot fine may be imposed by the CRO where the company has a record of persistent late filing and/or summary prosecution of the company and/or any officer in default. Fines of up to €1,904.61 can be imposed on a conviction for breach of the annual return filing requirements.

Strike off

In addition, a company may be struck off the register and dissolved for failure to file an annual return. If a company is struck off, the assets of the company become vested in the Minister for Finance, and if the business continues to trade, the owners will no longer enjoy the benefit of limited liability and so are personally responsible for any debts incurred so long as the company remains dissolved. Any person, who was a director of a company at the date of sending to that company of a strike off notice due to the non-filing of annual returns, may be disqualified from acting as director by the High Court, where the company is struck off leaving outstanding liabilities. Such order may be made by the Court on the application of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. Link to Involuntary Strike-Off.
Audit exemption

If a company’s annual return for the current year or the previous year was not filed on time, the company cannot avail of the audit exemption. Please see Audit Exemption page.

and for info http://www.cro.ie/ena/annual-return.aspx

Accounts

Information on keeping accounts - Companies are required to keep proper books of account which give a true and fair view of the company's financial affairs. Companies are also required to disclose details of their accounts at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) and to attach a copy of those accounts to the annual return filed with the CRO. In addition, they are required to observe certain standards in the preparation of accounts, following specimen formats and disclosing certain information by way of notes to the accounts. See Information on keeping accounts.

[gogo]

Just a bit more info about the annual return.

Please note that this states that the return must include a profit and loss account, be presented to the company AGM, and be signed off by two company directors. And CRO can reject the report :

If a company fails to comply with the requirements of section 7 of the 1986 Act, the annual return will be rejected by the CRO. In addition the company and every officer of the company who is in default will be liable to a fine not exceeding €1,905.

http://www.cro.ie/ena/annual-return-accounts.aspx page in full:

Accounts


Companies are required to keep proper books of account which give a true and fair view of the company's financial affairs. Companies are also required to disclose details of their accounts at the Annual General Meeting (AGM) and to attach a copy of those accounts to the annual return filed with the CRO. In addition, they are required to observe certain standards in the preparation of accounts, following specimen formats and disclosing certain information by way of notes to the accounts.
The Companies Acts 1963-2009 require directors of all companies to lay the following accounts and reports before the company members at the AGM:

• a profit and loss account (or an income and expenditure account if the company is not trading for profit)
• a balance sheet
• a directors' report
• an auditor's report

The annual accounts and directors' report must be signed on behalf of the directors by two directors.
The above-listed documents are required to be annexed to the annual return of a limited company on delivery to the CRO (section 7 Companies (Amendment) Act 1986). (Small and Medium companies have certain exemptions). In addition, there must be a certificate, signed by both a director and the secretary, certifying that the accounts and reports are true copies of those laid before or to be laid before the company's AGM.
If a company fails to comply with the requirements of section 7 of the 1986 Act, the annual return will be rejected by the CRO. In addition the company and every officer of the company who is in default will be liable to a fine not exceeding €1,905.
No accounts are required to be annexed to the first annual return which is delivered by a company post-incorporation. This return is required to be made up to the date which is six months after the date of the company's incorporation. Accounts are required to be attached to all subsequent annual returns filed by the company, unless it is a Private Unlimited Company.
Public limited companies and private limited companies prepare annual accounts in accordance with the Companies (Amendment) Act 1986. This Act brought into law the EC Fourth Directive on annual accounts of companies generally.

Please see also:
Please see Requirements for Accounts and information on accounts to be submitted by certain size companies: -

• Small
• Medium
• Group
• Large
• Guarantee
• Unlimited

[Tim]

great reporting, gogo.

[Scandiman]

4. dotMobi Talent Abandonment –

dotMobi VP, Amy (Glass) Mischler exited the dotMobi stage -- exceptional spokeswoman -- managed large brand accounts -- a primary public face of dotMobi -- a superstar, gone.

dotMobi CTO, Oxford educated, James Pearce walked away from dotMobi this month. “The brains” and a founding leader at dotMobi. A gritty entrepreneur, departed.


dotMobi CMO, David Ryder – this former ESPN Mobile exec slipped away.

Who will evacuate dotMobi next?l

While I know nothing about the circumstances, it appears that Paul Nerger, dotMobi’s VP of Advanced Services and Applications, is also no longer with the company as of July '09 per his LinkedIn profile.

Also Norbert Grey, VP of Finance since '05 also lists himself at linkedin as a past employee of dotMobi since April 2009

While it is impossible to know from these factoids as to who left, who was let go or who's contract may have expired, that much change in top management in a short amount of time is difficult on an organization to be sure.

[Tim]

Prasad and I spoke with Paul after the meet up in Silicon Valley. He was a very intelligent person. Who are taking these roles over? Has an announcement been made for any of them?

mTLD is in a VERY bad light right now, imo. Was the cost of these salaries too much? Did the workload drop? Were projects completed and therefore the roles went obsolete? What is the reason that so many well known personalities of mTLD have left?

Very interesting new developing topic.

[Scandiman]

Who are taking these roles over?

The current management team is described at mTLD's website: http://mtld.mobi/company/about/management

[Pred]

While I know nothing about the circumstances, it appears that Paul Nerger, dotMobi’s VP of Advanced Services and Applications, is also no longer with the company as of July '09 per his LinkedIn profile.

firstly thanks to michael, gogo and dt for excellent posts

i have to say, i had no idea amy had gone. that is shocking. looked great, sounded great, a great front of shop person.

add to that paul gone, that shocks me most, as paul was singlehandedly the brightest person at mtld, the most interesting, most amusing and most convincing.
when we were in London when paul spoke, he won any tussle and left you in no doubt he was the daddy. we all said that we liked him in amongst ourselves, and he was a real asset.
personally think a big shame he has gone.

i can think of a couple of people who should go but are still there but wont name names

i know small , small companies that update their sites to let the public and friends know when staff move on etc
why is this stuff being kept quiet. when people of this calibre leave, somethings afoot

currently very concerned, also why are mtld risking all our investments being lazy or underhand with their return?

i still have great faith in the branding potential of .mobi, the power of domains, the big, medium and small names joining .mobi weekly, but have one eye on the downside too
personally im in this sh*t or bust, til the fat lady is singing, if she ever gets up for the final act, or the beach party. anything is possible, and much is in our own hands.

mtld on the one hand are not a bad bunch but at same time are looking a little shady. remeber even al capone got collered by the inland revenue, dont play around with peoples lives, also as far as the upstanding staff who have served you, surely they deserve an onsite credit, testimonial/goodbye? also to let the legions of investors, developers etc know where people are going.

i still have faith in trey and pinky, but even they must be thinking wtf at the loss of amy and paul etc
so, if trey is in charge he must have had final say. there could be a innocent explanation for the loss of one person, but all of them?

answers are mandatory

[Accent]

..... answers are mandatory

I fully agree, but if those answers are not upbeat and wonderful we will not be hearing them.

It could be that the lack of renewals has required lay-offs, not at all surprising in this economy, but a couple of those people look to be top-flight, they are not who one would expect to be laid off. The fear, of course, is that there either was conflict within the company or that these people felt the company was not making enough progress, which is what some of us are feeling.

I guess the webinar is all we are going to get, despite that most of us (by the poll) were not enthusiastic about what we heard. Hope that DotMobi understands that a lot of people are going to drop a lot of Mobi domains if things do not change.

[Andres Kello]

While it is impossible to know from these factoids as to who left, who was let go or who's contract may have expired, that much change in top management in a short amount of time is difficult on an organization to be sure.

And is usually no coincidence.

[DomainTalker]

Its always leadership.


One consistent feature of poor leadership is that it is the outstanding talent in an organisation that leaves the organisation first. Good people don't want to work for an outfit that's poorly led. They go where their talents bring outcomes....A pattern of this is a clear signal.


Whether its a sports team, a political party, or, a business.....Leadership is everything.


When the leadership of an organisation is good:


* Strategy is crystal clear.

* Core values are consistent, well thought out, and well implemented.

* Brand positioning is unmistakeable.

* Market Communication is outstanding.

* Product differential/benefits are instantly visible in the market.

* Staff quality (& staff morale) is high. The best people want to work there.

* The organisation has momentum.


Good leadership creates this - and only good leadership can create it.


The absence of these elements always indicates poor leadership. Always.


There's nothing wrong with the .mobi product & concept, imo...It was brilliantly launched and positioned.


...But, within 2 years, or so, this organisation already appears to have lost its way, imo, if inconsistent values, confused primary mission & marketing, and, talent drain, are any indicators.


That's all about leadership.


(edited by DT)

.