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 Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    posted by Mueller on Saturday October 05 2002, @06:20PM

    The Final ICANN Staff Evaluation Report on .org redelegation may indicate that the management of ICANN has been intimidated by the belligerent lobbying of Neustar. What else can explain its coronation of NeuStar as the highest ranked choice should the ISOC-Afilias proposal not work out?

    The report notes that "the NeuStar proposal is a very strong proposal that must be given serious consideration should the ICANN Board choose not to accept the ISOC proposal." Other proposals, equally strong if not stronger in both the Gartner and Usage Evaluations, were not given such a commendation. Frankly, this writer does not know whether the staff is trying to console Neustar over the inevitable selection of ISOC by making it seem as if they came in second, or whether Neustar's intensive behind-the-scenes lobbying and all-out PR assault on the NCDNHC evaluation team is indeed having an effect. What we do know is that in order to bump Neustar up in the rankings, the staff report had to blur the results of the NCDNHC evaluation team, and do some injustice to the Unity, GNR, RegisterOrg and IMS/ISC proposals.

    (Please note that this article represents the opinion of the author only, and may not represent the opinions of other members of the Usage Evaluation Team.)

    Unity was "excluded from further consideration" by the Staff report because it came in seventh in the Gartner technical evaluation. However, the Gartner cover letter states explicitly that "we consider seven of the applicants to be fully capable of operating the registry in accordance with the requirements of ICANN." 'Nuf said. On that basis alone, Unity's top ranking on the remaining criteria ought to keep it in the running for the final award.

    GNR's bid was shaded downward by the Final Staff Evaluation Report for the following reasons: 1) It does not operate on the same scale as Neustar and Afilias. This is true but of limited relevance because the Gartner review ranked them almost the same technically; 2) the staff report also stated that "the GNR proposal is ranked significantly lower than the ISOC proposal by the Usage Evaluation Team." This is not quite true. GNR was ranked lower ONLY on the dimension of public support. On both the "differentiation" and "responsiveness/governance" criteria, GNR was ranked second overall, higher than ISOC/Afilias, and significantly higher than Neustar. 3) Worse yet, the final staff report claims that GNR should be downgraded because it may not qualify for the Verisign endowment. This is quite unfair! Neustar will not qualify for the Verisign endowment, either. The Staff Report goes on to make a wholly erroneous statement: that the NCDNHC evaluation of GNR would have been lower had it known that GNR would not qualify for the Verisign endowment. As a member of that evaluation team, I can say in no uncertain terms that that is not the case. NCDNHC was told that the nonprofit or for-profit nature of an applicant should not enter into its evaluations at all. We followed those instructions religiously. Whether GNR qualifies for the Verisign endowment or not had absolutely nothing to do with our ranking.

    I also believe that RegisterOrg's proposal was slighted unfairly by the Final Staff Evaluation Report. While it is true that the DotOrg Foundation proposal, which uses Register.com as a back end, was ranked pretty lowly by the NCNDHC team, the RegisterOrg proposal was ranked higher than Neustar in all respects except Public Support. In the Differentiation dimension, RegisterOrg was ranked 2nd whereas Neustar was ranked 5th; in Responsiveness/Governance, RegisterOrg was ranked 6th, whereas Neustar was ranked 8th. Register.com has as much experience as Neustar.

    Of course, IMS/ISC was not even discussed by the final staff report because of their low rankings from Gartner. But in the Usage (NCDNHC) Evaluation Team report they ranked third or fourth, and if ISOC/Afilias is not a factor they should be considered as a major contender.

    You will recall that Neustar employees were claiming that .org was "in the bag" some time ago. The Usage Evaluation Report, which ranked them below other applicants, must have come as a shock to them. Sadly, they have responded with a rather vicious, no-holds-barred attack. Their desire to discredit the evaluation, however, has exceeded their fidelity to fact. For those who care to pursue it, the Evaluation Team's response to Neustar's comments can be found in our Supplemental Report. That report (specifically, pp 7-9) went through Neustar's original objections point by point and showed just how unfounded (and even dishonest, in certain cases) they were. I note that in its second reply comments Neustar does not bother to acknowledge the Supplemental Report. They simply repeat discredited arguments or shift rhetorical grounds.

    Here is an example of the type of argumentation Neustar stooped to. In its first-round comments Neustar tried to claim as endorsers of its proposal four organizations that had simply been asked to respond to a survey. The Evaluation team searched for these endorsments and discovered that they had NOT endorsed Neustar's proposal, and pointed this out in the Supplemental Report. Neustar was rather silent on that issue this time around.

    Neustar's first round comments, a 50-page rhetorical barrage, is chock-full of this kind of camouflage. We had to go through it sentence by sentence to separate fact from fiction. It wasn't fun. What does this say about the integrity of this applicant? What does it imply about its willingness to work with the noncommercial community?

    Neustar has now been reduced to two arguments. One is that the NCDNHC Team was biased in favor of noncommercial entities. But that argument is so far off base it's funny. Our top choice, Unity Registry, was a for-profit, and of our top 4 recommended choices, 2 were noncommercial and two were commercial. No amount of spin can present such results as reflecting a bias toward noncommercial entities. Despite being thoroughly refuted in the Supplemental Report, Neustar continues to hammer away at it.

    The other argument is that NCDNHC suffers from a conflict of interest because it gave applicants points for helping noncommercial participation in ICANN. In fact, responsiveness to and supprt for noncommercial participants in ICANN were part of the evaluation criteria. We recognized that direct assistance to NCDNHC is but one of many possible ways of assisting noncommercial participation in ICANN. We did not show any particular bias toward those who selected to do this via the NCDNHC. But we did recognize those who did propose to work with NCDNHC as a legitimate way of being responsive to and supportive of noncommercial participation. One could claim conflict of interest if we had insisted on recognizing direct contributions to the NCDNHC as the ONLY form of supporting noncommercial interests in ICANN. But we did not.

    Our top-ranked applicant, Unity, does not provide any direct assistance to NCDNHC, but it does other suitable things. Of the top four, ISOC/Afilias and GNR proposed direct forms of working with NCDNHC; Unity and IMS/ISC did not. Also note that applicants who did propose direct methods of assisting NCDNHC, such as UIA/Diversitas, did not get top rankings.

    To conclude, critics of ICANN who believe that they are part of an evil insider conspiracy may be missing the mark. ICANN's real problem is that it is weak. It allowed Verisign to mount a front bid instead of ruling that out of order at the outset, because it feared a lawsuit from that company. It is now allowing Neustar to run amok because - if one reads between the lines of Neustar's challenges to the evaluation - it fears subsequent legal challenges from that Washington, DC insider firm. Sure, insiders win in ICANN processes, but that is because of the financial and legal weakness of ICANN, as well as the insular nature of ICANN's governance structure and the absence of an open market entry procedure. To make ICANN processes more fair, we need to do more than rail at the alleged "evil" of the individual people involved. We need to fix the processes. And we must start by defining a stable, regular procedure for adding TLDs, so that artificial scarcity and its attendant evils, so clearly demonstrated by the .org reassignment, are ended forever.

      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  
  • Supplemental Report.
  • Final ICANN Staff Evaluation Report
  • results of the NCDNHC evaluation team
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 48 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.
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Sunday October 06 2002, @01:28PM (#9571)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/

    And we must start by defining a stable, regular procedure for adding TLDs, so that artificial scarcity and its attendant evils, so clearly demonstrated by the .org reassignment, are ended forever.

    What he said.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    The Facts
    by Ken on Monday October 07 2002, @11:26AM (#9591)
    User #3509 Info

    I will let the facts speak for themselves.

    - The NCC evaluation team awarded points for "good works" which was a criteria specifically rejected by the Board in Accra

    - The NCC awarded points to those who offered financial support to the NCC. Again, this was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.

    - The NCC evalutation team awarded points for relationship with the noncommercial community. This also was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.

    - The NCC evluation awarded points for those applicants that conducted "pre-bid surveys". This was not requested by the ICANN RFP and was not one of the ICANN RFP specified criteria.

    - The NCC awarded points for "post-bid responsiveness" to the NCC. Again, this is not in
    the ICANN RFP criteria. The evalution also, "took account of the relationship the bidder proposes with the NCDNHC after winning the bid..." Again...not in the ICANN RFP criteria.

    - By its own admission, the NCC's added new criteria from outside the ICANN RFP. Specifically, the NCC included new criteria to the process which were derived from a DNSO policy recommendation document and not the ICANN RFP. This is clear from the following statement which appeared in the NCC comments:

    "Overall our evaluation criteria were directly derived from the Request for Proposals (RFP) and the DNSO Policy consensus."

    - The additional criteria added by the NCC evaluation team tilted the playing field in the favor of applicants who were non-profits or had noncommercial affiliations. This is particularly true of criteria like 'good works" and "relationship with the community".

    - Your comments make a number of subjective and speculative comments that are not grounded in fact or supported by the evaluation reports (e.g. you know what we were thinking about our chances of being selected or what our motives are).

    - As the chairperson of the "Usage" evaluation team, your comments about the technical evaluations are not appropriate and further demonstration of bias.

    Ken Hansen, NeuStar
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by Hendrik on Sunday October 06 2002, @04:52PM (#9572)
    User #2856 Info


    When you do want to dismiss the registrar-registry split as ridiculously invented, you are required to explain first why this approach works quite well in a lot of ccTLD's and why it fails in its current setup for gTLD's. Then you might not dismiss it but propose to change the flaws that cause the problems.

    I cannot find convincing arguments to dismiss the registry-registrar model as such as I am quite able to provide the working counter-examples based on a comparative study of registries, in specific those of European ccTLD's.

    The registry-registrar institutional arrangement has worked quite well in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark. It produced a higher number of domain names per capita for those countries than the US based companies and citizens have registered under the .us ccTLD's and the generic TLD's.

    Therefore it is better to define what outcomes in the domain name industry you consider as a succes and then assure yourself that the registry-registrar model is indeed bad performing to reach that goal.

    The main difference between European ccTLD's and the gTLD's as far as I am able to perceive is the far weaker position of the registry operator, who typically is a subcontractor to the not-for-profit registry. The non-profit registry is also heavily pushed by the registrar community to drive down registry prices per name as they are the registrars main input cost. As a consequence there is no serious need for regulatory style wholesale price-fixing.

    The large variety in type, size and approach of registrars and the low entrance barrier to become one (.uk and .nl have more than 1000 registrars each), has provided a registrar community that takes care quite well of their domain name registrants interests. E.g. there are for-profit and not-for-profit registrars that have themselves specialised in individual users and various non-commercial sectors of society (f.i. churches and religious organisations).
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    Re: Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede?
    by PeterBarron (pebarron@hotmail.com) on Monday October 07 2002, @07:06PM (#9611)
    User #3240 Info | http://www.icannwatch.org/
    I would feel more comfortable if trolls like you would both substantiate your points and not post anonymously.

    As a result, you are hardly taken seriously.

    At least I am not taken seriously due to my opinions, which is a step up.

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 7 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