<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
Sorry for the length (please don't quote this message in full when
replying on the GA list!) /// Alexander
------------------------------------------------------------
.org Reassignment: Applicant Comments on Preliminary Evaluation
Report on .org Proposals
(Received through 29 August 2002)
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments-on-preliminary-report.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Some picks from the actual comments:
SWITCH:
"The technical part of the proposal was written by engineers for engineers."
"We also note a strong unbalance with regard to the evaluation team-members
origin: this evaluation process was an All-American play.
No comment on the obvious personal interconnection between ICANN, ISOC and
Afilias but it would be unwise to believe that this situation contributed
positively to a neutral evaluation process."
"[Does not communicate understanding of major TLD transition]
This is a weak point in our proposal and we regard the critic as valid.
The transition plan should have provided more detailed information and there
were no milestones for ICANN to evaluate the process in our proposal."
"We consider the NCDNHC evaluation process as more neutral and more objective
than the technical process but it also was dominated by US interests
although the member list looks like it had more diversity."
"ICANN itselfev aluated the bidder’s qualification for the endowment. In our
case ICANN relies on an assumption and a speculation. We consider both as
non-founded."
"In our view the ORG evaluation process could have been a showcase for ICANN
to demonstrate openness, fairness and global thinking. ICANN, however, chose
to honor the closest bidder in an American-dominated process we consider as
highly nontransparent (evaluation by academic team not communicated,
weighting of criteria unknown, important criteria not considered etc.). This
ICANN managed ORG evaluation process was in our view not as fair as it could
have been."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/switch-29aug02.pdf
IMS/ISC:
"There was no technical due diligence conducted as part of the evaluation. Past
performance claims are not documented and no examination of code, logs, or
configurations was conducted."
"The evaluation was all theory and no practice. Since the distance between
theory and practice is so much smaller in theory than in practice, it is no
surprise that the evaluations were able to boil complex problems down to simple
metrics."
"We have thus posted an open letter at
<http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000270.shtml> and invite your comments as
well as those of our fellow .organisms."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/ims-isc-29aug02.htm
UNITY REGISTRY:
"No detail of the decision making process for the Academic CIO brief evaluation
was provided by ICANN. Given the disparity between the Academic and Gartner
evaluations, we would therefore respectfully request that the detailed report,
including decision making process, be provided or the evaluation disregarded."
"Given the issues outlined in this letter, Unity Registry believes it would be
prudent for Gartner to perform a re-evaluation taking into account the above
information."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/unity-29aug02.pdf
UIA
"These concerns fall into three major categories:
1. Setting the record straight: basic inaccuracies in the evaluations that may
have affected our rankings;
2. Issues related to fundamental flaws in the process and methodologies
employed, which have resulted in a number of the evaluation teams falling
back upon highly subjective approaches also detrimental to our evaluation; and
3. General concerns for the future democratic governance of the internet."
"3. We regret that more attention was not given to the confidentiality of the bid
process and its disassociation from ICANN politics {2}. It would have been
preferable to have the sealed bids handled by an independent body rather than
give rise to situations in which ICANN is seen to be so intimately
associated with the lead candidate."
"Where is the instability or difficulty of transition? Were we penalized because
we chose the simplest and safest option for transitioning .org by changing the
operator first and the equipment later?"
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/uia-29aug02.pdf
DOTORG FOUNDATION
"In trying to understand the NCDNHC’s review, we were frankly concerned by the
many mistakes we and others noted in the report. We have analyzed the report
carefully and provide two documents which we hope will address any concerns
ICANN may have as a result of the NCDNHC report."
"Our spreadsheets demonstrate what happens when one or more errors are corrected.
Scoring can shift to a startling degree."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/dotorgfoundation-29aug02.htm
GLOBAL NAME REGISTRY
"The financial problems of both ISOC and NeuStar have been documented and need
to be evaluated in consideration of their ability to operate .org."
"In particular, Gartner's publication of an analytical report on NeuStar in
the middle of the .org application process ("NeuStar: One of the Best
Kept-Secrets in Telecom," by David Fraley, 06 May 2002, available on
www.gartner.com) raises questions whether its more extensive knowledge of
NeuStar's systems may have given that bidder an unfair advantage."
"Since the CIO Team did not provide much detail as to its methodology or
findings, we question the reliability of its process and the weight attributed
to its determination."
"While we appreciate the voluntary efforts of the NCDNHC team, aspects of its
report concern us. Its methodology for measuring the level of public support
was flawed. Also, the report contains inconsistencies in evaluation of the 11
applicants and mathematical errors."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/gnr-29aug02.htm
ISOC
"Should ISOC be selected, we will form a new not-for-profit company the Public
Interest Registry (PIR) to run the .ORG registry. PIR’s board will be appointed
by ISOC, but PIR will be a separate legal entity and isolated from ISOC
financially and operationally. PIR (not ISOC) will enter into the registry
management agreement with ICANN, and PIR will contract with Afilias for all
back-end registry services. Our agreement with Afilias provides that Afilias will
cover the start-up, transition, and initial operating costs and will then be
repaid by PIR for these expenses over the course of the agreement."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/isoc-29aug02.htm
.ORG FOUNDATION
"The Academic CIO and the ICANN General Counsel Evaluation Reports were
disappointing in many respects. Our main concern is that no relevant data
was provided to substantiate the rankings given to each bid. This creates
a sense that the reports are overtly subjective and biased in their
conclusions."
"First and foremost, The .Org Foundation requests that the NCDNHC Evaluation
Report be completely discarded. We are truly alarmed that the NCDNHC Report
stated on page 20 that The .Org Foundation "did not respond to the NCDNHC
questions, nor to any other substantive questions on the list". This is a
completely false and highly prejudicial statement."
"Regarding the Gartner report, based on the significant inaccuracies stated
as justification for our low ranking we hereby request that Gartner or
the ICANN Staff re-evaluate our proposal and publish the findings."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/orgfoundation-29aug02.htm
NEUSTAR, INC.
"Overall, NeuStar submits that Gartner produced a credible and sound evaluation.
As with any complex evaluation, however, certain of Gartner’s statements are
incorrect or are based upon false assumptions, while others require
clarification by NeuStar."
"ISOC has no registry experience." (...) "DotOrg Foundation has no registry
experience." (...) "Register.Org has no registry experience." (...)
"GNR outsources its registry operations," (...)
"The CIO Team Evaluation incorrectly concludes that the ISOC bid has a strong,
lowrisk organizational model."
"Given the severely flawed nature of some of the analysis contained within
those reports, the recommendations contained within the Staff Report are
premature and improper."
"The NCDNHC Evaluation Report (the “NCDNHC Report”), in particular, cannot be
accepted on its face, if it is considered at all."
"Given the significant issues raised here and in NeuStar’s assessment of the
Evaluation Reports, it is clear that the Staff Report prematurely selects ISOC
as the best candidate for transition of .org. In particular, the highly
flawed NCDNHC analysis is an insufficient basis for the final selection of
the ISOC bid."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/neustar-29aug02.htm
ORGANIC NAMES
"Organic Names is disappointed with the Draft ICANN Staff Report, both in terms
of its recommendation, but also (and more seriously), in regard to substantive
inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and inconsistencies within the process."
"Instead, it appears that the size of an organisation, rather than its ability,
or /successful/ past experience, seems to be the main characteristic that
brings organisations to the top of the list."
"[NCDNHC Evaluation:] Organic Names submits that this is one of the most
inconsistent, ill prepared, and badly argued reports its principals have
thus-far encountered."
"Emails that appeared to be from the subcommittees (whose identities were not
known to Organic Names) were referred to ICANN to determine whether ICANN
wished us to answer them. In each case, the answer was ‘no’."
"We received no questions from the NCDNHC."
"If ICANN wish to ascertain support from others in the community it should
commission a market survey company with statistical experience and put relevant
questions to a statistically valid sample of people (...)"
"We suggest that the NCDNHC evaluation is flawed on many levels and we urge
the ICANN board and staff to ignore it. We believe many other applicants hold
similar opinions."
"Organic Names is concerned that none of the evaluators on the Gartner team
appeared to be wellknown or knowledgeable in matters of the DNS."
"In reviewing the Gartner Group's evaluation we seriously wonder if they have
read our proposal."
"It is Organic Names’ position that the draft report does not achieve the level
of professionalism and independence that we should expect from ICANN or any
body associated with the United States Department of Commerce."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/organic-29aug02.pdf
REGISTER ORGANIZATION
"While bidders were required to submit recent annual financial reports and
other financial data with their proposals, it appears that neither Gartner
nor the Academic CIOs examined that data or considered financial stability
to be relevant in its review."
"B. The Academic CIO Team Evaluation Is Highly Subjective, Provides No Analysis
And Relies On Inappropriate Criteria. It Therefore Must Be Disregarded In The
Staff Report."
"RegisterOrg greatly appreciates the recognition by the Gartner Report that it
provides a grade A technology plan."
"Although RegisterOrg was rated extremely well by the NCDNHC on a variety of
criteria, the NCDNHC, in some instances, appears to have misunderstood
RegisterOrg’s proposal and relied on some inaccurate data that we believe
adversely impacted the weighted ranking of the bidders."
"Several of the bidders already manage significantly large global registries.
Should any of those bidders be awarded the .org registry, that applicant would
control registries large enough to constitute another VeriSign. To that end,
RegisterOrg suggests that the goal of increasing competition at the registry
level requires the selection of an applicant with the technical capability and
experience to operate the .org registry whose selection will further diversify
registry management and promote competition."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/register-29aug02.htm
--
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
>>>
|