Re: [ga] Appendix U

[Bret Fausett <baf@fausett.com>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Note that the most long-lasting confidentiality requirement in the Afilias
> contract (the one I checked) is 18 months, and covers ONLY reports that
> reveal how much money they used for advertising (sections 2.1 and 4.4).
> 
> I think a fair amount of evaluation can be done without this info.

Sure. But if there's one piece of information necessary for the evaluation
that becomes available only after 18 months, then that holds up the entire
second round. 

It's actually more than 18 months from *now*. Here's the language:

        No later than one month after each anniversary
        date after the Commencement-of-Service Date,
        Registry Operator shall provide to ICANN an Annual
        Proof-of-Concept Report on Effectiveness of
        Competition, with the following information:
 
        3.1 Marketing Efforts.
 
        3.1.1 Total Registry Operator expenditures
        for marketing the .biz TLD, broken down by
        calendar quarter ending in the year to which
        the report relates and by the region where the
        expenditure was made.

Since the reporting triggers from "Commencement-of-Service Date," you should
know that this is "the date on which the Registry TLD is first delegated
within the Authoritative Root-Server System." On the most aggressive
schedule, let's say these TLD contracts are signed on Monday, May 7th, and
that the DOC promptly approves them, sends the instruction to NSI to add the
new TLDs to the root, and the new TLDs are live on May 10th.

We don't count 18 months from May 10, 2001, but 18 months from when the data
is delivered to ICANN. In this scenario, the data in 3.1.1 is not even *due*
until June 10th, 2002. It then remains "confidential" for 18 months,
becoming public on December 10th, 2003.

So if we complete the evaluation as soon as the reporting data becomes
public, we're looking at Q1, 2004. So we complete the evaluation and call
for new applications. On an unrealistically aggressive schedule, the
applications come in during Q3, 2004, setting up for selection at the
November 2004 meeting.

The second round goes live in 2005.

There are a lot of solid companies with thoughtful TLD proposals that would
like to move that forward faster, and they were told as much last November.
The schedule that I see unfolding is not consistent with the statements by
the Board in Marina del Rey. I'd love to be told I'm wrong, but the first
bit of testbed data under 3.1.1 won't even be available to the public for
years.

Personally, I'd like to see these marketing reports deleted entirely. I
don't see what they add for our evaluation purposes, and the confidentiality
concerns may outweigh the limited probative value.

          -- Bret

--
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