Re: [ga] Where is the New TLDs Evaluation Process?

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

I'm grateful to Jeff Williams for his links to the GNSO Council new gTLDs
committee reports.

These links, however, are the forward planning for further NewTLDs, *not*
the Evaluation of the 2000 New TLDs process, which was designed as a
'proof-of-concept' testbed, which was to be followed by a New TLDs
Evaluation Process.

"These seven new gTLDs were authorized as a "proof of concept" to gain
understanding of the practical and policy issues involved in such an
undertaking." (Stuart Lynn)

A New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task Force (NTEPPTF) was set up by
ICANN do define how the Evaluation of the 2000 TLDs should be carried out.

In Stockholm in June 2001, it was "Resolved [01.74], the Board directs the
President to form and chair a New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task
Force, for the purpose of recommending to the Board and the broader Internet
community, by means of a report to be discussed at ICANN's Montevideo
meeting in September 2001:

(a) a plan for monitoring the introduction of new TLDs and for evaluating
their performance and their impact on the performance of the DNS. This
assessment should focus in technical, business, and legal perspectives and
rely on data gathered as part of the contractual arrangements with the new
TLDs as well as other data inputs that can be readily secured; and

(b) a schedule on which a plan should be executed."

Note that there was a stated reliance on data contractually required from
the new Registries, which I have repeatedly complained has never been
published or seen, even though it was available for publication (by Vint
Cerf's own admission) over a year ago, but Stuart Lynn claimed ICANN staff
had not had time to ftp it to the website (that excuse is now over a year
old).

Although the report was supposed to be dealt with by Montevideo in September
2001, it was not in fact accepted by the ICANN Board until its meeting of 23
August 2002.

The final Report can be viewed here:
http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/final-report-31jul02.htm

Note that it states in section 2: "It is important to re-emphasize is that
the Task Force was not chartered with conducting the actual evaluation
itself, but rather developing a plan for the Board's considerations as to
how such an evaluation should be conducted."

With its final Report, the Task Force said its work was complete, but
"members of the Task Force stand willing to assist in whatever way the Board
considers to be appropriate if and when the Board proceeds with the
evaluation".

So The Evaluation Process itself had *still* not been set in motion.

Notwithstanding that the Evaluation Process had not been set in motion,
Stuart Lynn then presented the ICANN community with an action plan for
proposed further New TLDs.

This Action Plan proposed to "extend" the proof of concept Evaluation
Process to "include up to 3 more sponsored TLDs". There was a continued
commitment to an "evaluation of what has already been accomplished, to
provide guidance for the future"

The delay and need for this Evaluation Process to commence was noted (for
example) by the Business Constituency in its report last December:  "In late
2000, ICANN authorized as a proof of concept four new unsponsored names (dot
biz, info, name, pro) and three sponsored names (museum, aero, co-op). The
ICANN board has authorized an evaluation: this needs to move ahead with
urgency."

The actual plans for the Evaluation Process, recommended by the NTEPPTF and
accepted for implementation by the ICANN Board, were the result of very
detailed and painstaking work. The Task Force proposed a wide range of
questions (in categories Technical, Business, Legal, and Process) which
should be explored and answered by the future Evaluation Team, and it also
proposed a Monitoring Program. There was, the Task Force stated "a
considerable body of work" to be undertaken.

The Report also listed questions which "must be addressed early and most
importantly as a prerequisite to embarking on a another round of proposals
for new gTLDs."

For example, the Task Force noted "important issues have already come to the
fore - particularly in connection with the implementation of "sunrise" and
"landrush" domain name allocation methods". These were areas of huge
controversy and mismanagement and the need for formal evaluation of these
issues prior to further NewTLDs seems paramount, if exactly the same abuses
of process are not to be repeated.

For example, the abuse of registrar privilege in round-robin queues, where
some registrars simply queue-jumped by submitting extremely short lists for
themselves : this problem was flagged up by The Internet Challenge during
the .biz2B, and I asked Dan Halloran how the same problem could be avoided
in .info Landrush 2. Dan Halloran failed to respond, and history repeated
itself.

There were also a vast range of problems associated with the .info Sunrise,
involving abuse of process by registrar members of the Afilias cartel
itself, and by ICANN-accredited registrars who exploited loopholes in the
process and submitted fraudulent details.

The need for formal and detailed evaluation of the ICANN-Registry and
Registry-Registrar Agreements, and of the Sunrise and Landrush processes,
seems essential if consumers are not to suffer huge loss and inconvenience
all over again.

Acknowledging the pressure for further New TLDs, the Task Force stated: "The
potential for moving ahead faster does emphasize *the importance for
starting to gather data as soon as possible*. Appendix U (for unsponsored
gTLDs) and Attachment 21 (for sponsored gTLDs) of the various agreements
establishes requirements on the new registries for acquiring certain data.
It is important that ICANN monitor the new gTLDs to ensure that the data is
indeed being collected as provided for in the agreements. This may be
problematic unless ICANN can devote resources to the task."

I have repeatedly asked for the Appendix U data from the Registries to be
published and made available for informed judgements, and my requests have
to date been swept aside. Where are the Registry Evaluation Reports? Why
does it take so long for them to be ftp'd to the ICANN website, when they
were due 12 to 18 months ago?

This "first source" of data is given high importance by the Task Force in
its Final Report: "To the extent that data obtained from the first of these
sources is not confidential, every effort should be made to publish it to
encourage other studies to occur."

Why has *NO* effort been made to publish this critical Appendix U data from
the Registries?

To carry through the New TLDs Evaluation Process, the Board has (in
accepting the recommendations of NTEPPTF) undertaken to "solicit bids for an
Evaluation Team" who can investigate the key questions and produce informed
judgements. It has also undertaken  "to create an ICANN committee (which we
designate for convenience the TLD Evaluation Advisory Committee or TEAC)
which should be appointed to provide overall coordination and guidance to
the Evaluation Team".

A Time Schedule was set out by NTEPPTF for the implementation of the New
TLDs Evaluation Process. The Evaluation Team was to be selected, and a
contract issued, by Oct/Nov 2002. High Priority issues would be reported
back on by February 2003.

Well... we're now in the Summer of 2003 and none of this seems to have been
accomplished or even begun (and yet the whole issue is a matter of
international concern and impacts on all constituencies). It should be
pointed out that ICANN could consider partial funding of the process from
New TLD Application Fees. Aside from the non-existent Evaluation Team and
its urgently-needed work, the Task Force emphasised the importance of
Monitoring the Process from start to finish, using - for example - the
Registry Evaluation Reports (which have failed to materialise). The cost of
FTP'ing these (when ICANN "finds time") would be negligible.

I'm sorry to sound so scathing, but I regard this as a *NO CONFIDENCE*
issue.

It seems wholly unacceptable that this vital work appears to have been
neglected, when ICANN is invested with responsibility for a resource for the
whole world, and when the debate of expanding the namespace is so central.

I have waited over 400 days for even an acknowledgement of my concerns over
the NewTLD Process. I have waited over a year for a clear explanation of why
the Registry Evaluation Reports have not been published. The bottom line is:
this failure of management and implementation is growing more serious, and
the need for belated action is wholly urgent. Otherwise, ICANN's decisions
on selection and implementation of further NewTLDs will appear arbitrary and
ill-founded.

The ICANN Board committed itself to a Process. A Task Force worked extremely
hard to design that Process. The ICANN Board agreed to proceed with that
process.

But...

There is no Process.

yours,


Richard Henderson



From previous mail:


> > I raised questions with Dan Halloran over 400 days ago, and he has never
> > acknowledged my mail. I asked Paul Twomey to respond to me about this, a
> > month ago, and... he has never acknowledged my mail.
> >
> > I don't personally matter (though I appreciate professionalism and
courtesy)
> > but the process *does*. ICANN seems to be ignoring what it chooses to
> > ignore, and doing what it chooses to do, but how does it account for the
> > invisibility of a Process it promoted itself?
> >
> > If there is no New TLDs Evaluation Process, how can we expect informed
> > discussion to take place prior to the selection of further TLDs?
> >
> > If there is no New TLDs Evaluation Process, carried out formally and
> > professionally, then how can we trust ICANN to make fair and considered
> > selections of New Registries and New TLDs?
> >
> > If there is no New TLDs Evaluation Process, why should we suppose that
the
> > same mistakes and corruption that beset the earlier TLDs will not be
> > repeated all over again?
> >
> > Does the ICANN Board just want to do whatever it chooses, without
submitting
> > to a formal Evaluation Process?
> >
> > Where is the New TLDs Evaluation Process?
> >
> > yrs,
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> >


--
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