[ga] Responsiveness and ICANN

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Dear Dr Twomey

I've just located your e-mail via ICANN's site, so I'm forwarding the thread
below, and I respectfully ask if you could get me some considered responses
(not necessarily yourself).

I've been trying (for over a year) to get responses from ICANN staff and
Board on two enquiries. The first concerns the publication of Registry
Evaluation Reports on the New gTLDs (Appendix U of ICANN/Registry
Agreement). I made direct requests for this data to the ICANN Board through
2002 and into this year. The second concerns substantial and documented
issues of registrar fraud and problems of process in the release of New
TLDs, which I addressed to Dan Halloran as ICANN's Registrar Liaison over a
year ago, asked for repeatedly through 2002 and into this year. These
requests have been copied and published (several times) on the GA lists,
ICANN's NewTLD Public Forum, and at ICANNWatch.

I have tried to participate in an informed manner, particularly on the issue
of NewTLDs, have been elected twice as an At Large representative, and lead
a normal and rational life offline, as a married father of 3, former prison
governor, now working in education.

I shall keep trying to get detailed responses to the specifics of my
questions, because I feel ICANN staff have evaded the issues I have raised.

Kind regards and my best wishes for your challenging new role,

Richard Henderson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Further to my post (below) does anyone have Paul Twomey's e-mail so I can
forward my mail direct to him, or can someone do this for me, or is Paul
reading this list himself? I'd really appreciate his response on this.
(e-mail now found...)

Responsiveness is an issue mentioned by Nancy Victory / DoC and an issue
Paul himself has mentioned. As it is now over a year since I raised this
matter of Registry Evaluation reports, and as I've also been waiting over a
year for a response (or even acknowledgement) from Dan Halloran on
substantial issues of fraud involving some of his accredited registrars, I
am hoping Paul can - as a matter of principle and good intent - expedite
responses on both these enquiries.

Call me old-fashioned and British, but simple courtesy costs nothing, and I
can't understand what Dan finds so disagreeable about responding to my
serious, relevant, and considered mail.

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@ameritech.net>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] 3:219 INFO...beyond the Proof-of-Concept...


> Thanks for these links, Jim.
>
> I note from  the second link, the following objective to be fulfilled
during
> the financial year 2003-4:
>
> "Complete any remaining work on the evaluation of the November 2000 round
of
> new gTLDs; complete any remaining work on approving and launching a
limited
> round of new sponsored gTLDs; and develop a framework for considering any
> possible further expansion in the top-level gTLD namespace."
>
> Due order and respect for process (and the Proof of Concept principle)
> should dictate that "approving and launching a limited round of new
> sponsored gTLDs" should not take place until the evaluation of the
sponsored
> and unsponsored new TLDs of 2000 has been completed.
>
> May I please ask: who precisely (individually or group) is overseeing the
> Evaluation Process for evaluating the New gTLDs?
>
> What stage has this Evaluation Process reached?
>
> Where are the Registry Evaluation Reports, required by Appendix U of their
> Agreements with ICANN, and due over a year ago?
>
> If they have been submitted, in conformity with the Agreement, why has
ICANN
> *still* not published them, so that all parties and constituencies can
study
> them, and engage in informed participation over the much-needed evaluation
> of these new TLDs?
>
> I first asked why these had not been published, back in late Spring of
2002.
> I asked again in Summer 2002, when Stuart Lynn said that ICANN staff had
> "not had time" to publish them on the website. I asked again in Autumn
2002.
> I made a further request in Winter 2002. I asked again early in 2003. It
is
> now May 2003, and I am asking again.
>
> Given that these Registry Evaluation Reports were specifically defined as
> open, and given that these files could be uploaded onto a website in a few
> minutes, I find Stuart Lynn's explanation unacceptable, and I request that
> this key data is made available for study.
>
> There is much pressure for the introduction of further new gTLDs, and
> interest from all over the world. At the same time, there were clear
> problems in the way the year 2000 TLDs were rolled out, and important
> lessons to be learned, in the interests of the consumer and stakeholders
> worldwide.
>
> It is imperative that we now get a clearly-defined plan of action,
> timescale, and appointees to oversee this process, to publish all data, to
> engage all parties.
>
> Otherwise, ICANN leaves us with the impression that it is "making it up as
> it goes along" and marginalising its own much-vaunted Proof of Concept.
>
> yrs
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@ameritech.net>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2003 1:03 PM
> Subject: [ga] 3:219 INFO...beyond the Proof-of-Concept...
>
>
> > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > 3:219     INFO
> > ====
> > http://www.icann.org/financials/proposed-budget-17may03.htm
> >       .info  550,000 1,029,000 87%
> >
>
>
> --
> 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