Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    .org Org bidders respond to evaluation
    posted by michael on Saturday August 31 2002, @06:50AM

    alexander writes " ICANN has published the .org bidders comments regarding the Preliminary Staff Report. As you will remember, there were four parts to it: Here are some particularly interesting quotes from the comments submitted:"

    "The technical part of the proposal was written by engineers for engineers."

    "We also note a strong unbalance with regard to the evaluation team-members origin: this evaluation process was an All-American play. No comment on the obvious personal interconnection between ICANN, ISOC and Afilias but it would be unwise to believe that this situation contributed positively to a neutral evaluation process."

    "[Does not communicate understanding of major TLD transition] This is a weak point in our proposal and we regard the critic as valid. The transition plan should have provided more detailed information and there were no milestones for ICANN to evaluate the process in our proposal."

    "We consider the NCDNHC evaluation process as more neutral and more objective than the technical process but it also was dominated by US interests although the member list looks like it had more diversity."

    "ICANN itselfev aluated the bidder’s qualification for the endowment. In our case ICANN relies on an assumption and a speculation. We consider both as non-founded."

    "In our view the ORG evaluation process could have been a showcase for ICANN to demonstrate openness, fairness and global thinking. ICANN, however, chose to honor the closest bidder in an American-dominated process we consider as highly nontransparent (evaluation by academic team not communicated, weighting of criteria unknown, important criteria not considered etc.). This ICANN managed ORG evaluation process was in our view not as fair as it could have been."

    "There was no technical due diligence conducted as part of the evaluation. Past performance claims are not documented and no examination of code, logs, or configurations was conducted."

    "The evaluation was all theory and no practice. Since the distance between theory and practice is so much smaller in theory than in practice, it is no surprise that the evaluations were able to boil complex problems down to simple metrics."

    "We have thus posted an open letter at http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000270.shtml and invite your comments as well as those of our fellow .organisms."

    "No detail of the decision making process for the Academic CIO brief evaluation was provided by ICANN. Given the disparity between the Academic and Gartner evaluations, we would therefore respectfully request that the detailed report, including decision making process, be provided or the evaluation disregarded."

    "Given the issues outlined in this letter, Unity Registry believes it would be prudent for Gartner to perform a re-evaluation taking into account the above information."

    "These concerns fall into three major categories: 1. Setting the record straight: basic inaccuracies in the evaluations that may have affected our rankings; 2. Issues related to fundamental flaws in the process and methodologies employed, which have resulted in a number of the evaluation teams falling back upon highly subjective approaches also detrimental to our evaluation; and 3. General concerns for the future democratic governance of the internet."

    "3. We regret that more attention was not given to the confidentiality of the bid process and its disassociation from ICANN politics {2}. It would have been preferable to have the sealed bids handled by an independent body rather than give rise to situations in which ICANN is seen to be so intimately associated with the lead candidate."

    "Where is the instability or difficulty of transition? Were we penalized because we chose the simplest and safest option for transitioning .org by changing the operator first and the equipment later?"

    "In trying to understand the NCDNHC’s review, we were frankly concerned by the many mistakes we and others noted in the report. We have analyzed the report carefully and provide two documents which we hope will address any concerns ICANN may have as a result of the NCDNHC report."

    "Our spreadsheets demonstrate what happens when one or more errors are corrected. Scoring can shift to a startling degree."

    "The financial problems of both ISOC and NeuStar have been documented and need to be evaluated in consideration of their ability to operate .org."

    "In particular, Gartner's publication of an analytical report on NeuStar in the middle of the .org application process ("NeuStar: One of the Best Kept-Secrets in Telecom," by David Fraley, 06 May 2002, available on www.gartner.com) raises questions whether its more extensive knowledge of NeuStar's systems may have given that bidder an unfair advantage."

    "Since the CIO Team did not provide much detail as to its methodology or findings, we question the reliability of its process and the weight attributed to its determination."

    "While we appreciate the voluntary efforts of the NCDNHC team, aspects of its report concern us. Its methodology for measuring the level of public support was flawed. Also, the report contains inconsistencies in evaluation of the 11 applicants and mathematical errors."

    "Should ISOC be selected, we will form a new not-for-profit company ­ the Public Interest Registry (PIR) ­to run the .ORG registry. PIR’s board will be appointed by ISOC, but PIR will be a separate legal entity and isolated from ISOC financially and operationally. PIR (not ISOC) will enter into the registry management agreement with ICANN, and PIR will contract with Afilias for all back-end registry services. Our agreement with Afilias provides that Afilias will cover the start-up, transition, and initial operating costs and will then be repaid by PIR for these expenses over the course of the agreement."

    "The Academic CIO and the ICANN General Counsel Evaluation Reports were disappointing in many respects. Our main concern is that no relevant data was provided to substantiate the rankings given to each bid. This creates a sense that the reports are overtly subjective and biased in their conclusions."

    "First and foremost, The .Org Foundation requests that the NCDNHC Evaluation Report be completely discarded. We are truly alarmed that the NCDNHC Report stated on page 20 that The .Org Foundation "did not respond to the NCDNHC questions, nor to any other substantive questions on the list". This is a completely false and highly prejudicial statement."

    "Regarding the Gartner report, based on the significant inaccuracies stated as justification for our low ranking we hereby request that Gartner or the ICANN Staff re-evaluate our proposal and publish the findings."

    "Overall, NeuStar submits that Gartner produced a credible and sound evaluation. As with any complex evaluation, however, certain of Gartner’s statements are incorrect or are based upon false assumptions, while others require clarification by NeuStar."

    "ISOC has no registry experience." (...) "DotOrg Foundation has no registry experience." (...) "Register.Org has no registry experience." (...) "GNR outsources its registry operations," (...)

    "The CIO Team Evaluation incorrectly concludes that the ISOC bid has a strong, lowrisk organizational model."

    "Given the severely flawed nature of some of the analysis contained within those reports, the recommendations contained within the Staff Report are premature and improper."

    "The NCDNHC Evaluation Report (the “NCDNHC Report”), in particular, cannot be accepted on its face, if it is considered at all."

    "Given the significant issues raised here and in NeuStar’s assessment of the Evaluation Reports, it is clear that the Staff Report prematurely selects ISOC as the best candidate for transition of .org. In particular, the highly flawed NCDNHC analysis is an insufficient basis for the final selection of the ISOC bid."

    "Organic Names is disappointed with the Draft ICANN Staff Report, both in terms of its recommendation, but also (and more seriously), in regard to substantive inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and inconsistencies within the process."

    "Instead, it appears that the size of an organisation, rather than its ability, or /successful/ past experience, seems to be the main characteristic that brings organisations to the top of the list."

    "[NCDNHC Evaluation:] Organic Names submits that this is one of the most inconsistent, ill prepared, and badly argued reports its principals have thus-far encountered."

    "Emails that appeared to be from the subcommittees (whose identities were not known to Organic Names) were referred to ICANN to determine whether ICANN wished us to answer them. In each case, the answer was ‘no’."

    "We received no questions from the NCDNHC."

    "If ICANN wish to ascertain support from others in the community it should commission a market survey company with statistical experience and put relevant questions to a statistically valid sample of people (...)"

    "We suggest that the NCDNHC evaluation is flawed on many levels and we urge the ICANN board and staff to ignore it. We believe many other applicants hold similar opinions."

    "Organic Names is concerned that none of the evaluators on the Gartner team appeared to be wellknown or knowledgeable in matters of the DNS."

    "In reviewing the Gartner Group's evaluation we seriously wonder if they have read our proposal."

    "It is Organic Names’ position that the draft report does not achieve the level of professionalism and independence that we should expect from ICANN or any body associated with the United States Department of Commerce."

    "While bidders were required to submit recent annual financial reports and other financial data with their proposals, it appears that neither Gartner nor the Academic CIOs examined that data or considered financial stability to be relevant in its review."

    "B. The Academic CIO Team Evaluation Is Highly Subjective, Provides No Analysis And Relies On Inappropriate Criteria. It Therefore Must Be Disregarded In The Staff Report."

    "RegisterOrg greatly appreciates the recognition by the Gartner Report that it provides a grade A technology plan."

    "Although RegisterOrg was rated extremely well by the NCDNHC on a variety of criteria, the NCDNHC, in some instances, appears to have misunderstood RegisterOrg’s proposal and relied on some inaccurate data that we believe adversely impacted the weighted ranking of the bidders."

    "Several of the bidders already manage significantly large global registries. Should any of those bidders be awarded the .org registry, that applicant would control registries large enough to constitute another VeriSign. To that end, RegisterOrg suggests that the goal of increasing competition at the registry level requires the selection of an applicant with the technical capability and experience to operate the .org registry whose selection will further diversify registry management and promote competition."

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

      Related Links  
  • http://not.invisible.net/signa ls/bin/000270.shtml
  • UIA
  • ISOC
  • Preliminary Staff Report
  • Gartner, Inc.'s technical evaluation
  • Academic CIO's technical evaluation
  • NCDNHC's usage evaluation
  • ICANN General Counsel's procedural evaluation
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Org bidders respond to evaluation | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 6 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Deja vu
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Saturday August 31 2002, @07:32AM (#8850)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    It's the new gTLD evaluation and selection period all over again.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Part of the process
    by Mueller (muellerNO@SPAMsyr.edu) on Saturday August 31 2002, @02:10PM (#8859)
    User #2901 Info | http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/

    This is an iterative process, and also, as they say in law, adversarial.

    One can expect the bidders ranked low to wail and gnash their teeth and attack especially those parts of the evaluation process that ranked them low.

    One can also expect many of them to uncover real mistakes, real inconsistencies, or oversights that need to be corrected.

    The real proof of the pudding is in the revised evaluation report.

    Don't put much stock in the conclusory snippets from the responses put forward above. Some of them are on target, some of the are total B.S., others bear looking into.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Org bidders respond to evaluation
    by fnord ({groy2k} {at} {yahoo.com}) on Saturday August 31 2002, @02:43PM (#8860)
    User #2810 Info
    Bret Fausett's icann.blog points to comments on the .org redelegation by John Klensin (googled here). It is curious that the .org process seems to be generating even more criticism (at least from more authoritative sources) than the new TLD process. -g
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com