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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Vint and all assembly members, stakeholders/users, or other interested parties,

  Thank you vint for this interesting view.  This view of yours however again
seems quite incomplete or potentially misleading.  In addition if your view/guess
is accurate it would seem reasonable that any information regarding new TLD's
being considered should be completely transparent to the stakeholders/users.
Hence I and our [INEGroup] members are as we have for some time,
finding this sort or view far less than open and transparent as required
in the White Paper and MoU.  Given that, Vint, any such future TLD
decisions as to additions should have any and ALL information regarding
such new TLD's completely available for public review, no exceptions/redactions.

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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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