[ga] The Mystery of the Missing TLD Evaluation Reports
Title: Help Requests 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:
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?)
|