<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] RE: Discuss digest, Vol 1 #518 - 5 msgs
Ken and all,
Ken, your specific objections or "Comments" below are noteworthy
indeed, but do not adequately reflect the improper ICANN RFP
which I believe you know was and still is hotly contested. Hence
your said objections as points of fact do not jive well with the
documented debates and records regarding the ICANN RFP to
which you refer. Hence, the whole process was rigged from the
get go.
As to you objective comment below regarding and I quote,
"technical evaluations are not appropriate and further demonstration of bias."
demonstrates that their was and remains some uneasiness in the technical
ability of the winner of the bid. Hence, again it would seem that you
are simply grandstanding for the sake of your affiliation. That's fine, except
it doesn't wash too well with consensus based decision making such
as this bid. Ergo, it would seem reasonable that yet again the process's
for ICANN are broken, and as such specific purposeful intent to harm
is evident and dangerous. To me and our members, this points directly to
poor leadership on the part of the ICANN staff in particular, and
the ICANN BoD as well for not keeping such possibilities in check
adequately. In a post 9/11 world, and in accordance with the
current administrations and presidents concerns and initiative on
cybersecurity, such lack of adequate leadership is unexcepatable
and irresponsible.
Hansen, Ken wrote:
> Milton,
>
> I will let the facts speak for themselves.
>
> - The NCC evaluation team awarded points for "good works" which was a
> criteria specifically rejected by the Board in Accra
>
> - The NCC awarded points to those who offered financial support to the NCC.
> Again, this was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.
>
> - The NCC evalutation team awarded points for relationship with the
> noncommercial community. This also was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.
>
> - The NCC evluation awarded points for those applicants that conducted
> "pre-bid surveys". This was not requested by the ICANN RFP and was not one
> of the ICANN RFP specified criteria.
>
> - The NCC awarded points for "post-bid responsiveness" to the NCC. Again,
> this is not in
> the ICANN RFP criteria. The evalution also, "took account of the
> relationship the bidder proposes with the NCDNHC after winning the bid..."
> Again...not in the ICANN RFP criteria.
>
> - By its own admission, the NCC's added new criteria from outside the ICANN
> RFP. Specifically, the NCC included new criteria to the process which were
> derived from a DNSO policy recommendation document and not the ICANN RFP.
> This is clear from the following statement which appeared in the NCC
> comments:
>
> "Overall our evaluation criteria were directly derived from the
> Request for Proposals (RFP) and the DNSO Policy consensus."
>
> - The additional criteria added by the NCC evaluation team tilted the
> playing field in the favor of applicants who were non-profits or had
> noncommercial affiliations. This is particularly true of criteria like 'good
> works" and "relationship with the community".
>
> - Your comments make a number of subjective and speculative comments that
> are not grounded in fact or supported by the evaluation reports (e.g. you
> know what we were thinking about our chances of being selected or what our
> motives are).
>
> - As the chairperson of the "Usage" evaluation team, your comments about the
> technical evaluations are not appropriate and further demonstration of bias.
>
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-request@netaction.or.kr
> [mailto:discuss-request@netaction.or.kr]
> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 11:01 PM
> To: discuss@icann-ncc.org
> Subject: Discuss digest, Vol 1 #518 - 5 msgs
>
> Send Discuss mailing list submissions to
> discuss@icann-ncc.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> discuss-request@icann-ncc.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> discuss-admin@icann-ncc.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant
> Comments | 1 October 2002 (fwd) (Milton Mueller)
> 2. Re: ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant
> Comments | 1 October 2002 (fwd) (Dave Crocker)
> 3. Re: ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant Comments | 1 October 2002
> (fwd) (t byfield)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 16:56:28 -0400
> From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <discuss@icann-ncc.org>, <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant
> Comments | 1 October 2002 (fwd)
>
> Alejandro:
> Thanks for the heads up. When you say this:
>
> >>there is some strong wording about the NCDNHC in this assessment
>
> You mean the Neustar assessment.
>
> That is the _only_ applicant comment that has a particular animosity
> for the NCDNHC's contribution to the evaluation. I will explain the
> underlying reason for that below.
>
> But first, you need to know that we dealt with Neustar's comments at
> length in our Supplemental Report, which you can read here:
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/ncdnhc-supplemental-report-12sep02.pdf
>
> That report (specifically, pp 7-9) went through Neustar's original
> objections
> point by point and showed just how unfounded (and even dishonest, in
> certain cases) they were. I note that in its second reply comments
> Neustar does not bother to acknowledge our Supplemental Report. They
> simply repeat discredited arguments or shift rhetorical grounds a bit.
>
> As an example, in its first-round comments Neustar tried to claim as
> endorsers of its proposal four organizations that had simply been
> asked to respond to a survey. We pointed out that these
> organizations had NOT endorsed their proposal in our Supplemental
> Report. Neustar was rather silent on that issue this time around.
>
> (Neustar's first round comments, a 50-page rhetorical barrage, is
> chock-
> full of this kind of camouflage. We had to go through it sentence by
> sentence to separate fact from fiction. It wasn't fun.)
>
> Neustar has now been reduced to two arguments. One is that we
> were biased in favor of noncommercial entities. That argument just
> doesn't work. Our top choice, Unity Registry, was a for-profit, and
> of our top 4 recommended choices, 2 were noncommercial and two
> were commercial. No amount of spin can present such results as
> reflecting a bias toward noncommercial entities.
>
> The other argument is that NCDNHC suffers from a conflict of
> interest because it gave applicants points for helping noncommercial
> participation in ICANN. I think we handled this issue correctly. We
> recognized that direct assistance to NCDNHC is but one of many
> possible ways of assisting noncommercial participation in ICANN.
> We did not show any particular bias toward those who selected to
> do this via the NCDNHC. But we did recognize those who did
> propose to work with NCDNHC as a legitimate way of being
> responsive to and supportive of noncommercial participation.
> One could claim conflict of interest if we had insisted on
> recognizing direct contributions to the NCDNHC as the ONLY
> form of supporting noncommercial interests in ICANN. But we
> did not.
>
> Note that our top applicant, Unity, does not provide any direct
> assistance to NCDNHC, but it does other suitable things. Of the top 4,
>
> ISOC/PIR/Afilias and GNR proposed direct forms of working
> with NCDNHC; Unity and IMS/ISC did not. Also note that applicants
> who did propose direct methods of assisting NCDNHC, such as
> UIA, did not get top rankings.
>
> Alejandro, this is one area where I hope the ICANN Board will
> show some real integrity and make it clear that an applicant's
> ability to make lots of noise - and lots of implied threats - will
> not affect its decisionmaking. ICANN staff has already shown
> a major bias toward Neustar by casting them as the second-
> ranked proposal, when in fact the combination of the technical and
> usage-oriented reports should make ISOC, Unity and GNR
> the top-ranked applicants. Nothing in the results significantly
> differentiates Neustar from RegisterOrg, yet the staff report
> reduces the status of RegisterOrg, unfairly I think, to below
> Neustar's.
>
> I think the source of the problem here is that Neustar
> strongly EXPECTED to be the winner, and their low rankings
> in the NCDNHC report came as a shock to them. I guess they
> think that their only option at this point is to create an ugly scene
> so that Board members, who may already perceive NCDNHC
> negatively because of its housing dissent, will further split
> ICANN and disregard the duly authorized evaluation team.
>
> But think about the implications of that.
> Neustar's apparent willingness to hurl mud and exploit any
> available rhetorical devices to discredit our report does not
> make them a very promising candidate to operate .org. It's
> not that we can't take criticism, it's the fact that the criticism
> is not legitimate and is deliberately manipulative and destructive
> that bothers me. How can an applicant of such low integrity be
> entrusted with a resource so valuable to the noncommercial
> community?
>
> --MM
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 14:21:40 -0700
> To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant
> Comments | 1 October 2002 (fwd)
> Cc: <discuss@icann-ncc.org>, <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
>
> At 04:56 PM 10/5/2002 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >That is the _only_ applicant comment that has a particular animosity
> >for the NCDNHC's contribution to the evaluation. I will explain the
>
> Once again, folks,
>
> When was that contribution reviewed and approved by this
> constituency, or when was the authority to produce work in the name of this
> constituency -- without constituency review and approval -- delegated to
> the authors of that contribution?
>
> The same question applies to the supplemental document. (Language
> in the supplement, like "we eventually reached a unanimous consensus" is
> wonderfully misleading.)
>
> In other words, what makes those contributions anything other than
> the independent work of a small team of individuals?
>
> As before, a citation to the public record of formal constituency
> decision-making on these matters would be sufficient.
>
> d/
>
> ----------
> Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:02:37 -0400
> From: t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>
> To: discuss@icann-ncc.org
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant Comments
> | 1 October 2002 (fwd)
>
> dhc2@dcrocker.net (Sat 10/05/02 at 02:21 PM -0700):
>
> > >That is the _only_ applicant comment that has a particular animosity
> > >for the NCDNHC's contribution to the evaluation. I will explain the
> >
> > Once again, folks,
>
> once again, dave:
>
> i support the assessment. do you not support it? if not, why not?
> and why did you wait until now to register your objections?
>
> i asked you that on 3 oct, and you didn't answer.
>
> the NCC report was issued on 9 september; if you're objecting on pro-
> cedural grounds, why didn't you do so when it was in process or immeğ
> diately after it was issued?
>
> cheers,
> t
>
> --__--__--
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> End of Discuss Digest
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|