Re: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)

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

ICANN introduced the New TLDs with a much-vaunted "Proof of Concept" process
to accompany them.

The launch of the new TLDs was to be a carefully studied test by which to
measure the viability of any future New TLDs.

They committed themselves to a New TLD Evaluation Process. Members of the
public have been contributing valuable information about the New TLDs for
almost 2 years on ICANN's New TLD Public Fora (which sadly Stuart Lynn
branded "a joke"). In reality, many of the problems associated with these
New TLDs first broke to the public through the vigilance of the public, on
these fora, as well as at ICANNWatch.

Meanwhile, what has ICANN done to measure the 'proof of concept', to
evaluate the New TLDs, and assess their viability?

Firstly, ICANN has been asked to clarify exactly who is going to chair the
New TLD Evaluation Process, which has yet to formally commence. (There was a
committee set up to define the aims and methods of a subsequent evaluation
process - but where is the process itself?)

Secondly, ICANN required mandatory and publishable Evaluation Reports from
the New TLD Registries. These were required under Appendix U of the
ICANN-Registry Agreements. Very specific details had to be assessed and
reported back on by the Registries, and it was made clear that these were
predominantly for public consumption.

I have been asking ICANN staff and Board *for over a year* why these
Evaluation Reports have never been published. They were mostly due for
publication 12 to 18 months ago. I first asked in Spring of 2002. There was
no reply. I then asked again in the Summer of 2002. Stuart Lynn said that
ICANN staff had been "too busy to upload the reports onto the ICANN
website". I asked again in Autumn 2002, and again in January 2003 and Spring
2003.

It is now June 2003 - and ICANN staff still have not had enough time to
upload the Registry Evaluation Reports. My 12 year old daughter could have
done it in half an hour.

What does this tell us about the seriousness of ICANN's commitment to the
"Proof of Concept", the Evaluation Process, and the need to consider all
aspects of New TLD releases, rather than just their own arbitrary criteria?

And ICANN always goes on about wanting to involve all constituencies in
participation and policy development. How can people engage in informed
participation, if key data is withheld (in what I now regard as an
obstructive manner)?

The issue of New TLDs is of immense interest and concern, internationally,
to sincere internet users all over the world.

This California quango gives the appearance of just acting arbitrarily, with
inadequate respect or acknowledgement of the viewpoints of the world beyond.

Where are the Evaluation Reports?

Where is the Evaluation Process?

Why have I waited 400 days for an acknowledgement from Dan Halloran to a
serious and detailed mail about the new TLDs? Why does ICANN arbitrarily
ignore parties it does not wish to face?

This thread is entitled "Why we are being ignored".

I have been ignored for over 400 days on the issue of the New TLDs. How is
that for ICANN's much vaunted "Responsiveness"?

I'm just grateful that ICANNWatch has afforded space to publish the detailed
concerns over the release of these New TLDs, and is prepared to offer a
voice to the worldwide constituency which ICANN treats with disdain.

If we do not fully evaluate the difficulties, abuse of process, and problems
which accompanied previous New TLDs, then how can we hope to avoid a
repetition of similar problems?


Sincerely,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@yahoo.com>
To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <vb@bertola.eu.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:44 PM
Subject: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)


> Hello,
>
> While they're pondering new TLDs, have they ever issued a report on the
> "success" of the old ones that were added?
>
> In particular, has ICANN ever even defined metrics for judging the
> success/failure of new TLDS? Without specifying those criteria IN
> ADVANCE, the whole thing is a sham. This came up in the WLS debate,
> too, where the only "success criteria" was whether Verisign makes money
> (for real, check Verisign's answers to public questions in the document
> at http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf ), and no study of the
> existing landscape was ever conducted, to be able to judge the impact
> of any changes.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
> --
> 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