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)

    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    The Strange Disappearance of the New TLD Evaluation Process | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 17 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.
    Ah! Here is the New TLD Evaluation Process...
    by Richard_Henderson on Tuesday July 01 2003, @02:45PM (#11890)
    User #3269 Info | http://www.atlarge.org/

    Stuffed away on the Business Constituency newsletter, I find this reference:

    www.bizconst.org/newsletter_June03.htm [bizconst.org]

    "BC member Sebastien Bachollet has accepted a 6 month contract with ICANN to oversee the evolution of the "proof of concept" round of gTLDs. Evaluation is currently underway and we look forward to Sebastien's report."

    I find it very strange that ICANN has not published an announcement about this contract on its own website.

    My concern is that the scope and detail of the Evaluation Process proposed by the NTEPPTaskForce seems to have been watered down to a 6 month investigation by one member of the original Task Force team.

    What was desperately needed, after the difficulties of the previous TLDs, was a detailed and objective investigation which pulled no punches.

    Therefore I'm left wondering:

    1. Was this contract put out to tender, or did ICANN just appoint a friendly insider without really telling anyone?

    2. Should this key post have been publicly advertised?

    3. Who, specifically, appointed Sebastien? Was anyone else interviewed for the job?

    4. What about the contractual data from the registries (Appendix U etc) which hasn't even appeared yet?

    5. How detailed will Sebastien's investigation be? (For example will it draw on the mass of data and evidence which has accumulated on the ICANN NewTLD Forums and the ICANNWatch website, concerning abuse of process and registrar fraud, Sunrise and Landrush problems etc.)

    6. Will Sebastien call witnesses and allow public input, as part of his Process?

    7. At the moment we know about Sebastien's new role from a mention on a backwater website. How open is this process going to be, and is ICANN going to make his investigation transparent and interactive? Just as the Registry data should be in the public domain, so too the step by step deliberations of the various issues should also be accessible to the public, to encourage full participation.

    I am concerned that all we might get is an "in-house" process which lacks sufficient detail and objectivity.

    Hard questions need to be asked and these have been evaded.

    It is usually not ICANN but independent participants who ask the honest and awkward questions. What guarantee do we have that this "in-house" process will encourage a truly objective Evaluation, which remains independent of ICANN interference?

    Will the selection of the further sTLDs be able to go ahead, if the Evaluation Process is as far behind as it appears to be? Will Sebastien's 6 months overseeing an Evaluation be sufficient to develop fair criteria, so that the selection of the next registries is not arbitrary ICANN preference, but founded on the detailed lessons learned from the previous problems?

    What have we learned about Sunrise, about Landrush, about abuse of process, about implementation and enforcement of agreements, about registrars who game the system to warehouse names for themselves, about proposed marketing budgets which evaporate into thin air?

    The NTEPPTF developed a huge and detailed list of areas deserving investigation.

    What I think we're likely to get is a Lite-version, which pays mere lip service to the "Proof of Concept", because it will suit ICANN to exhume as few skeletons as possible.

    What will be best for ICANN is a cheap, quick, lite-weight, in-house Process, which gives the appearance of an investigation, but is got out of the way as quickly (6 months?) as possible, and as quietly as possible...

    ...as quietly, as Sebastien was appointed...



    Richard Henderson

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Sebastien Bachollet
    by WIPOorgUK on Wednesday July 02 2003, @08:25AM (#11892)
    User #3146 Info | http://wipo.org.uk/
    This looks like the same sebastien.bachollet@cigref.fr

    If so - then Cigref "brings together 116 of the leading French and European corporations from all sectors of economy (banking & insurance, energy, retail, industry, services...)."

    They look after the I.T. interests of BIG FRENCH COMPANIES ("grandes entreprises francaises").

    From their FAQ: What criteria must be met in order to join Cigref?

    "...Furthermore, the company applying must either generate annual turnover of more than EUR1bn or have an annual IT budget of more than EUR20m."

    To restate that - this is for companies with a turnover GREATER THAN 1 BILLION EUROS - OR I.T. BUDGET GREATER THAN 20,000,000 EUROS!!!

    I believe this "Evaluation" will be a corporate steal - Sunrise is an unlawful act.

    Most trademarks share the words or initials with many others businesses - both with and without trademark.

    As you have heard many times before: "Take for example the word 'apple'. It is legally used by thousands of businesses - large and small all over the world. Indeed, it is impossible that they all register themselves as trademarks - they are bound to conflict with many others, being confusingly similar. In my local phone book alone, there are at least five using this word - two garages (seems not connected), a car centre, fruit growers and a decorating firm."

    Ask ANY lawyer - a trademark cannot use their mark to prevent others from conducting legal commerce.

    Has nobody in authority heard of Trademark or Antitrust Law?

    ICANN, WIPO and US DoC know the solution. When authorities could put trademark identity beyond shadow of doubt, they are either devoid of intelligence or corrupt.

    You know my informed opinion - any person that support these unlawful acts is a crook.

    Garry Anderson - Haverhill UK - www.skilful.com
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Ah! Here is the New TLD Evaluation Process...
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Wednesday July 02 2003, @06:58PM (#11895)
    User #2810 Info
    Mention of Sebastien Bachollet's appointment does [icann.org] (as of two days ago) appear on ICANN's website, though it doesn't show up via an icann.org search. The link states in part:
    To focus and accelerate these studies, ICANN retained the services of Mr. Sebastién Bachollet through FINAKI
    This link [eurocio.org], linking Bachollet and Philip Sheppard, calls FINAKI a European IT events specialist. Their own site at finaki.com makes a similar claim and says they were created in 1998. What an events specialist could possibly know about TLD expansion, or even the hiring of a supposed expert, is left unexplained. The WHOIS for finaki.com gives an address in France. Someone might want to google it.

    Bachollet was also a voting member of the DNSO [dnso.org], and is apparently a member of icannatlarge.com [icannatlarge.com]. He has attended various ICANN meetings and made various public comments there and elsewhere, for example being against Lynn's reform plan, for transparency (what is his position on that now?), and for end users (although that could mean, at least primarily, large corporate end users). He does seem to think ICANN is too US centric.

    Regardless of who he is, or whom he represents, this contracting out (is that, if anywhere, how it was listed in the budge?) to presumably one individual (perhaps there are unannounced others) who was part of the original group really stinks (right up there with hiring Kent Crispin), particularily as the
    Final Report
    [icann.org] never made any such suggestions.

    It did however suggest that the top eleven Criticality questions be answered [icann.org] by last month, so they seem to be horrendously behind schedule, at this rate those questions rated of lower Criticality won't be answered in this century. This is how typical governments work, if you don't want something to happen (in this case more new TLDs, more true registry competition), but you don't have the guts to say so, then you study it forever. Note that my first link is to ICANN's recent report to the USG and paints a glowing picture of the apparent progress of the process.

    BTW, Danny Younger mentioned this appointment last May so it is unclear to me when this 6 month contract began. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]

    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