Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
> To be clear, what we have described in our .org application is a technical
system that has been developed, built and will continue to be operated
solely by Global Name Registry. Nothing in our application alludes to any
system, or even components of a system, built by VeriSign. Therefore, this
puts us on an even playing field with only those bidders who have not had
the opportunity to have our systems reviewed by Gartner.
>
> This may or may not have hurt us and other similarly situated bidders - we
just don't know. Our point in raising this issue was simply that (1)
previous knowledge about any of the bidders should have been disclosed prior
to evaluation, and (2) with the existence of Gartner's previous knowledge
about any of the bidders (and therefore the uncertainty of whether this
resulted in any advantage of one bidder over another) it can't be said
unequivocally that the evaluation was thoroughly impartial or based solely
on the evidence provided in each of the carefully prepared bids.
K, understood - a couple of further questions then Karen.
In your response to the eval's you indicate that you are using, exclusively,
technical systems that were developed in house, and that these systems have
been designed to handle the needs of .org. Why aren't these same systems
being used to handle the needs of .name? Despite the allegations that you
are making against Neustar and Afilias, it would seem to me that they are
better positioned, technically, to run the operation simply by viture of
having spent the last two years building and ironing out their technical
operations in the .us, .info and .biz contexts whereas with GNR, what we get
sort of amounts to a "we've built something that doesn't rely on Verisign's
infrastructure and it might work." from GNR.
Lastly, which I think is the more important point, we've not heard (or at
least, I haven't seen) what the details of Verisign's economic relationship
is with GNR. Given that we have a limited field of registry operators and
given the competition is key to supplier innovation, decent price
structures, service etc. (and given that I like to think that we are an
important customer of the new registry operator) it would be useful to know
what the details of this relationship are in order that I/we can make an
informed judgement as to whether or not GNR's relationship with Verisign is
one that I can believe will not work against my interests over the longer
term.
Pointers to past comments and/or clarifications here would be useful.
Thanks,
-rwr
Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
- Soren Kierkegaard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Elizaga" <karen@elizaga.name>
To: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>; "DNSO General Assembly"
<ga@dnso.org>
Cc: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
> Hello Ross & Alexander,
>
> To be clear, what we have described in our .org application is a technical
system that has been developed, built and will continue to be operated
solely by Global Name Registry. Nothing in our application alludes to any
system, or even components of a system, built by VeriSign. Therefore, this
puts us on an even playing field with only those bidders who have not had
the opportunity to have our systems reviewed by Gartner.
>
> This may or may not have hurt us and other similarly situated bidders - we
just don't know. Our point in raising this issue was simply that (1)
previous knowledge about any of the bidders should have been disclosed prior
to evaluation, and (2) with the existence of Gartner's previous knowledge
about any of the bidders (and therefore the uncertainty of whether this
resulted in any advantage of one bidder over another) it can't be said
unequivocally that the evaluation was thoroughly impartial or based solely
on the evidence provided in each of the carefully prepared bids.
>
> Regards.
> KE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:alexander@svensson.de]
> Sent: 31 August 2002 16:03
> To: DNSO General Assembly
> Cc: Ross Wm. Rader
> Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)
>
>
>
> Hello Ross,
>
> At 31.08.2002 08:34, Ross Rader wrote:
> >Any thoughts on GNR's complaint that Neustar may have an unfavorable
> >advantage over GNR because of Gartner's prior analysis?
>
> The report on NeuStar was written by David Fraley of Gartner's
> Network Infrastructure group. NeuStar's registry services are
> part of that report. There has also been a report on
> how VeriSign cut their fraud rates (fraud against VeriSign,
> that is). It's hard to tell what's in the NeuStar report
> without paying the 795 US$, but from the table of contents,
> it looks rather like a company portrait, not an in-depth
> analysis of their domain name business or their .org chances.
>
> That said, I don't believe that Gartner's prior analysis of
> NeuStar has had a significant impact on their recent report.
> At least I don't see anything in the Gartner report for ICANN
> which indicates that they were more familiar with NeuStar than
> with other bidders.
>
> >What I mean is given
> >GNR's technical & economic association with Verisign, wouldn't GNR
benefit
> >from a similar evaluative bias given that Verisign's operation could be
> >viewed as the standard by which all other comers are being judged? One
would
> >assume that the technical evaluators would have a high degree of
> >pre-existing familiarity with Verisign and therefore GNR.
>
> GNR gets a 3.48 Gartner score for criterion 1 (stability);
> UIA using VeriSign gets a 3.60 score, Afilias scores 3.67,
> NeuStar 3.85. It doesn't look like GNR's association with
> VeriSign has made a tremendous impression, and some bids
> were rated higher than the one using VeriSign (UIA).
>
> It's understandable that almost all the bidders are unhappy
> with the evaluation reports which rate them down. However,
> there are some points which stick out:
> -- The Academic CIO analysis with its "group discussion"
> approach is not suitable for such an evaluation, since
> the ranking is intransparent. Five academic CIOs stating
> that their "team feels [!] that two proposals, NeuStar and
> ISOC, were the strongest" is utterly unconvincing.
> -- The NCDNHC report is much more transparent; unfortunately,
> some errors made it into the published version. Even
> though transparent, the evaluation method is of course
> debatable and it seems that there have been problems
> with contacting some of the bidders (e.g. Organic Names).
> -- The Gartner evaluation states criteria and evaluation in
> detail. Even though there are mistakes or at least areas
> where bidders disagree, it is quite transparent. Where
> errors are clear, they should be corrected (as in all other
> reports).
> -- The Staff Report should not have recommended a particular
> bidder, and I hope the Board makes it clear to their staff
> that this should never happen again! How is the Board to
> retain their judgement if staff posts a press announcement
> titled "Preliminary Report to ICANN Board: ISOC to Run .org?"?
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary
Information and is made available to you because of your interest in our
company. This information is submitted in confidence and its disclosure
to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or authorization for
disclosure to other parties.
> *****************
> What's your .name?
> Get one at www.name
> *****************
>
> --
> 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@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
|