Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to theBoard

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

vint,

first of all I'm always impressed you actually take the time to read all
the posts I see you reply to, my hat is off to you.

this isn't a query but more of a point of information regarding reporting
required by registries and ICANN's ability to publish them.

In appendix T of the new gTLD contracts Registries are required to report
many mundane statistics, see http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/unsponsored/registry-agmt-appt-11may01.htm

The data required in Appendix T and Appendix U are mostly statistical in
nature which makes it hard to buy the confidentiality restrictions. Also
Appendix T does not have the option for a confidentiality restriction but
not one of the Appendix T reports has been published either.

There is one registry that does publish Monthly Operator reports much like
what is required in Appendix T, see
http://www.gtldregistries.org/reports.html The VeriSign Registry has
published reports, available, dating as far back as March 2000.

My point is that ICANN is loosing its credibility, this isn't your fault,
but telling us the reports are there make no difference if they cannot be
reviewed. This leaves us with just one person to ask... Karl Auerbach.
which seems silly, because the Appendix T reports have no confidentiality
restrictions. Which makes it this pill so hard to swallow.

Isn't this all just a bit ironic? I've evn offered to part-time as a
webmaster to help get these reports out, apparently ICANN staff doesn't
take well volunteers either.

nntr,

-rick



On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, vinton g. cerf wrote:

> richard,
>
> my understanding is that at least some, if not all, reports have been
> received but some contain proprietary information. Before these
> reports can be released in public form, they have to be redacted to
> preserve the confidentiality of proprietary data. Staff has simply
> been busy with other work so this is still on the task queue.
>
> vint
>
> At 03:25 PM 9/1/2002 +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> >
> >Why hasn't the NTEPPTF had access to the "Proof of Concept Evaluation reports" which had to be submitted by Afilias, in accordance with Appendix U of the .info Agreement with ICANN?
> >
> >This task force was specifically set up by the Board to Evaluate the New TLDs. How can it have done so without access to the vital data?
> >
> >Has this data been fully submitted by Afilias?
> >
> >Where is it?
> >
> >Why hasn't it been provided, even to the Task Force set up to evaluate it? I have had it confirmed to me by members of this Task Force that these documents have not been provided to them.
> >
> >Will Stuart Lynn now please confirm that all the documents have been properly submitted, and will the NTEPPTF please now reconvene and submit a revised report based on this data?
> >
> >And will the ICANN Board please make this data available for others too, as specifically allowed under the terms of Appendix U?
> >
> >What is the point of a "proof of concept" or an evaluation process if you withhold the vital data from the Registries involved?
> >
> >It makes it seem like the Board wants to "go through the motions" without having to address all the details.
> >
> >Richard Henderson
> >
>
> Vint Cerf
> SVP Architecture & Technology
> WorldCom
> 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115
> Ashburn, VA 20147
> 703 886 1690 (v806 1690)
> 703 886 0047 fax
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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