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

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

Stuart and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  Your response below sounds allot like a flim-flam here Stuart...

  I think the BoD should do it's own evaluation without any
suggestions from the ICANN staff as to how to proceed in doing
that evaluation so as to at least to some degree, although very minor,
a more objective evaluation from the BoD can be done.  In any event
the Stakeholders/users evaluation is all that really matters.

M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> There is confusion in the question and some of the subsequent responses.
>
> The appendices to which you refer have relevance to the evaluation
> itself not to the NTEPPTF report. The latter is not an evaluation,
> but contains recommendations to the board on how to proceed with an
> evaluation. The task force did not require access to these appendices
> or any other similar information in order to frame its
> recommendations.
>
> Stuart
>
> At 3:25 PM +0100 9/1/02, 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
> >
>
> --
> 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