<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] FYI: New TLD Evaluation Planning TF draft report
Alex and all assembly members,
Thank you for bringing this report to our attention from the
New TLD TF, Alex.
There are a few problems that I have with the final recommendations
of this Task force see:
http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/draft-final-report-15jun02.htm#12
Which are as follows:
12 Recommendations
In summarizing the above, the NTEPPTF makes the following
recommendations to the Board:
1. The Board should immediately initiate an Evaluation of all
Questions indicated as Criticality 1 in Section 8 of this Report.
2. The Evaluation should adhere approximately to the schedule
laid out in Section 10 of this report. This schedule can be
accelerated to the extent the Board and the community is
prepared to delegate more of the decision process to
ICANN staff.
3. The Evaluation should address the questions defined in
Section 7 of this Report as are applicable to Stages
S1 and S2. To the extent that insufficient funds are
available in the ICANN budget, priority should be
given to answering those questions labeled as
Criticality C1.
4. The Evaluation should follow the methodologies
outlined in Section 9 of this Report.
5. A Monitoring Program as outlined in Section 8
of this Report should be launched as soon as
possible, in any event no later than September 2002.
6. The Board should consider budgeting adequate
funds for the above activities. In the event insufficient
funds are available, priorities should be established
as described in Section 11.
7. The Board should consider to what extent it can initiate
planning of and proposal solicitations for new rounds
of gTLDs in parallel with the Evaluation and Monitoring
projects recommended above.
INEGroup recommends that the ICANN Board reject most of these
recommendations for the following reasons:
1.) Actual stakeholders were not allowed to participate in this task
forces activities or even be aware of such activities in any way.
2.) Members of this Task Force were "Selected" not Elected by the
stakeholders as required in the White Paper and the MoU.
3.) Recommendation #1, references the criticality as evaluated in Section
8 of this Task Forces report. It is our strong belief that the criticality
determination in section 8 of this task forces report is greatly skewed
and cannot accurately reflect the interests of the Stakeholder community
as this Task force did not adequately or in any meaningful way conduct
solicitation from the stakeholders so as to make such a determination
as to criticality as put forth in Section 8 of this Task forces Report.
4.) We have certain procedural problems with recommendation #2 to the
extent that the this task force is seemingly desires of leaving more
of the determination as to the need and desire of additional gTLD's
to the ICANN staff for purposes of excelerating the recommendations
in section 10. We believe and has been expressed by many other
stakeholders in various other DNSO Constituency's that such determinations
should remain firmly in the hands of the stakeholders, not just the ICANN
staff. We believe that at this juncture, following the June 12th Senate
hearings that it is clear that the ICANN staff has yet to show adequately
it's ability to perform sufficiently, openly, transparently with the
stakeholders
in accordance with it's mandate's in the White Paper and/or the MoU.
5.) We believe that Section 7 as referenced in recommendation #3, are not
sufficient, and lack proper phrasing as to address the actual problems
with the already introduced new gTLD. It is also in our considered
opinion that the priority of the improperly phrased or couched questions
in section 7 are only partly in order of importance or priority.
6.) INEGroup agrees that monitoring needs to be ongoing and be done
as efficiently as possible, but find the recommendation in #5 to be
insufficient on several fronts. First, such monitoring should be
conducted in an open and above board manner by independent
organizations along with a elected group from the DNSO
constituencies or the DNSO GA members. Second, recommendation
#5 suggests a start date of no later than September 2002. We believe
that this process should have already been ongoing currently and
as a result the start date should be moved up to as soon as possible,
and earlier than September 2002.
7.) Recommendation #6 seems to suggest indirectly that perhaps funding
for this task forces recommendations will fall short of the required amount
and therefore provide a fall back position the task force outlined in
section #11. We therefore believe that all other measures, including
the ICANN staff and Board should give up a large portion of their
salaries before section 11 is invoked.
Alexander Svensson wrote:
> Draft of Final Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force
> http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/draft-final-report-15jun02.htm
>
> Table of Contents
> 1 Overview
> 2 Background
> 3 Approach
> 4 Parallel Processing: Opportunities and Risks
> 5 Structure
> 6 Areas
> 7 Questions to be Addressed
> 8 Monitoring Program
> 9 Evaluation Methodology
> 10 Evaluation Timetable
> 11 Funding and Priorities
> 12 Recommendations
> Appendix 1: Comments on Questions
> Appendix 2: Comments Received on Interim Report
>
> [...]
>
> The Task Force solicits comments before July 15, 2002 on this draft of
> its Final
> Report. The Task Force will consider these comments and finalize the Report
> prior to submitting it to the ICANN Board sometime in July. At that point
> the
> work of the Task Force will be complete. As indicated in Section 9, however,
> members of the Task Force stand willing to assist in whatever way the Board
> considers to be appropriate if and when the Board proceeds with the
> evaluation
> itself.
>
> [...]
>
> The topics included in the proposed four areas can be summarized as follows:
>
> Technical
>
> * Effects on DNS stability and performance.
> * Operational performance of the registry operators.
>
> Business
>
> * Compliance of new registry operators with signed agreements and with
> original proposals.
> * Business processes followed by new registry operators in offering
> services.
> * Scope of markets (registrants) attracted by new TLDs.
> * Practices of new TLDs for regarding trademark concerns,
> cybersquatting, and
> dispute resolution.
> * Effects on consumers and end users of new domain names.
> * Provision of accurate and up-to-date Whois contact information.
>
> Legal
>
> * Scope and effectiveness of legal agreements.
> * Monitoring of agreements for compliance.
>
> Process
>
> * Selection of new TLDs.
> * Communication of information during the pre start-up and start-up
> stages
> (Stages I and II).
> * Monitoring of performance of new TLDs.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|