Re: [ga] The Mystery of the Missing TLD Evaluation Reports

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

Richard and all former DNSO GA members,

  Your joining making this call is one amongst many, Richard.  I am
fairly sure
you are well aware of this.  Thank you for joining in doing so.

  ICANN, especially the BoD and staff have acted in much less than
an expectable or responsible manner in this and other areas of policy
and practice.  It appears that they shall continue to do so it seems...

Richard Henderson wrote:

>    HelpRequests for information about key documents in the evaluation
> process of the NewTLDs (like .info and .biz) have been met with
> procrastibation and evasion from inside ICANN. No-one can suggest I
> haven't been patient in my efforts to get ICANN to publish these
> papers. I first asked in April of last year (when publication of many
> documents was already months overdue). There was no reply at all, from
> either Dan Halloran or Stuart Lynn. I then repeated my request in the
> summer, and Stuart Lynn replied that the reports had not been
> published "because ICANN staff haven't had time to put them up on the
> website". I offered my 12 year old daughter's assistance to FTP them
> if it would help. In the autumn, I asked again why the ICANN
> constituencies could not have access to these central evaluation
> documents. Then I repeated the request in December.
>
> It is now ONE YEAR since I first asked for them to be made available,
> so that all ICANN constituencies could make informed judgements on the
> New TLDs, and there is still no sight or sign of them.
>
> The allocation of New TLDs to Registries like Afilias and Neulevel
> were subject to Registry Agreements with detailed conditions, and
> included a mandatory "self-evaluation" of their performance as part of
> what ICANN called the "Proof of Concept".
>
> In short, the prospect of further TLDs would be determined according
> to the "Proof of Concept" processes which were to be shared and
> undertaken by all ICANN's constituencies. Indeed the New TLD
> Evaluation Process was set up (including a specific forum) to give the
> appearance that everybody could be involved in assessing the success
> or otherwise of these new registries.
>
> For their part, registries like Afilias were obliged by their
> Agreement with ICANN (Appendix U) to submit very detailed records of
> each aspect of their roll-out period. These conditions can be found
> here:
>
> http:
> /www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-appu-11may01.htm
>
> According to this agreement, Afilias's submissions of information were
> only to be kept private for a limited period of time (in most cases 3
> months, in some cases not at all). These time limitations have now
> long expired.
>
> However, requests to view these documents have met with prevarication
> so far from ICANN.
>
> As there is a widely-held public perception that serious mistakes were
> made in roll-out of the New TLDs and the process was at times
> shambolic and detrimental to the public interest, I think it is wholly
> correct that Afilias's explanation of what happened should be
> accessible to the public (as clearly implied by this Appendix U).
>
> It is therefore extremely disappointing that, to date, ICANN has
> declined to release this data, which is central to any serious
> Evaluation of the NewTLD process. It is pretty obvious that these
> Proof of Concept Evaluations are of value and relevance for the whole
> of the ICANN community if its participation is to be informed, serious
> and open.
>
> Dan Halloran, Vint Cerf, and Stuart Lynn (while in office) have been
> formally and politely asked for a professional response about (1)
> whether these "Missing Documents" have even been submitted; (2) why
> they are not available for the public to see; (3) how all parties can
> participate in the New TLDs Evaluation Process without them.
>
> These key DOCUMENTS are, as of now, MISSING and UNACCOUNTED FOR. I
> feel sure that ICANN can and should account for them by answering my
> enquiries. We are talking about documents which were expressly not
> intended to remain private (stated clearly in Appendix U) and there
> can be little integrity in the Proof of Concept process if they either
> (a) haven't been submitted, or (b) are being withheld.
>
> Stuart Lynn last summer gave assurances to Nancy Victory that ICANN
> was pointed in the direction of greater openness and responsiveness,
> and his successor has repeated this mantra. I find the silence and
> evasion on this matter of central documents disappointing.
>
> If we are to participate as a community in the future development of
> the DNS, then the much-publicised "Proof of Concept" processes need to
> be wholly open and fully disclosed. Many people want to know whether
> or if or when the next TLDs will be released. The TLD Evaluation
> Process to which Afilias was obliged to contribute with documents, as
> of now effectively missing, will be essential to the future roll-out
> of further TLDs. ICANN should not withhold these documents.
>
> There is a further, final twist of irony to these Afilias documents.
> When last autumn the full extent of the Afilias .info fiasco became
> apparent - what resigning Director Robert Connelly called an
> "abomination" because of the way Landrush 1 customers were abandoned -
> Professor Robert Connor produced the widely-accepted "Domebase
> Solution" which would have protected the interests of all parties
> except the Sunrise fraudsters. But Afilias refused to implement it,
> and one of their defences was that they had to stick to the
> pre-planned mechanisms to protect the "Proof of Concept" process. The
> same excuse was offered when they declined requests to delete Sunrise
> names even when the actual registrants themselves were asking them to.
> There was a "Proof of Concept" process going on, and it had to be
> protected.
>
> It would be ironic indeed, if Afilias and ICANN failed to uphold the
> Proof of Concept process themselves, after the loss and inconvenience
> suffered by so many consumers.
>
> The Evaluation Documents were not intended to be kept secret. Where
> are they? Please can they be published in detail (and ideally viewed
> by a trusted party like Karl Auerbach)? Please could ICANN respond to
> this request? Otherwise the Internet community and the ICANN
> constituencies cannot fully participate in the New TLDs Evaluation
> Process, and we are left with "top-down" decision-making instead of
> "bottom-up" openness and deliberation.
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> (I have been participating for nearly two years on ICANN's own NewTLDs
> Evaluation Forum (and its predecessor) and am recognised as having
> some knowledge of the process and its impact, from the user/registrant
> point of view. I have also twice been elected as an @large
> representative and regularly participe in the GA-list. I feel my
> correspondence deserves the courtesy of a more thorough explanation
> from ICANN. I sent previous mail to Dan Halloran concerning the New
> TLDs back in April and May of 2002, and here we are in April 2003, and
> to date I have received not even an acknowledgement. My friends, we
> need openness and integrity. We need more professionalism than this. I
> will detail the other issues I raised with Dan in a separate post, and
> hopefully in further media outlets, but suffice it so say that 365
> days is too long to wait for the courtesy of an acknowledgement...
> particularly when you write to the ICANN Registrar Liaison executive
> about serious and substantive issues of fraud, deception, and the
> breakdown of ICANN agreements. 365 days is virtually up. How serious
> is the new ICANN CEO about participation, openness and
> responsiveness?)
>
>

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801


--
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