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

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    ICANN silent on new gTLD evaluations | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 25 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    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: ICANN silent on new gTLD evaluations
    by Anonymous on Wednesday August 28 2002, @02:23AM (#8741)
    >>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.<<

    Unfortunately, it seems we are NOT to participate as a community in the future development of the DNS, unless ICANN is disbanded then reconstructed from the ground up.

    Richard Henderson, as usual, is right on the mark here.

    We've all been betrayed by ICANN, including some large-scale trademark holders! Yes, even some major corporations, for whose benefit the Sunrise Period was jammed down our throats, also got screwed by that very system.

    With all the domain name theft and attempted theft by Afilias board members (i.e. Govinda Leopold, Moshe Fogel), it is no surprise to learn the Afilias ship is sinking. What we don't yet know is what the Ken Stubbs payoff amounted to.

    Is Nancy Victory uninformed to the extent of allowing this fiasco to perpetuate indefinately? Nancy, are you reading here?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Even ICANN's own Evaluation Task Force hasn't seen
    by Richard_Henderson on Sunday September 01 2002, @05:08AM (#8870)
    User #3269 Info | http://www.atlarge.org/


    Why hasn't the NTEPPTF had access to the "Proof of Concept Evaluation reports" which had to be submitted by Afilias, in accordance with Appendix U of the .info Agreement with ICANN?


    This task force was specifically set up by the Board to Evaluate the New TLDs. How can it have done so without access to the vital data?


    Has this data been fully submitted by Afilias?


    Where is it?


    Why hasn't it been provided, even to the Task Force set up to evaluate it? I have had it confirmed to me by members of this Task Force that these documents have not been provided to them.


    Will Stuart Lynn now please confirm that all the documents have been properly submitted, and will the NTEPPTF please now reconvene and submit a revised report based on this data?


    And will the ICANN Board please make this data available for others too, as specifically allowed under the terms of Appendix U?


    What is the point of a "proof of concept" or an evaluation process if you withhold the vital data from the Registries involved?


    It makes it seem like the Board wants to "go through the motions" without having to address all the details.


    Richard Henderson


    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: Even ICANN's own Evaluation Task Force hasn't
      by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday September 01 2002, @07:20AM (#8876)
      User #2810 Info
      Richard, as you may be aware (although most of us weren't until late in the process), the NTEPPTF wasn't to do the actual evaluations, it was to evaluate how do to the evaluations. In its final report it recommends the use of Appendix U data for such subsequent evaluations. Of course pigs might fly before that process gets fully underway. -g
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
        Re: Even ICANN's own Evaluation Task Force hasn't
        by Richard_Henderson on Sunday September 01 2002, @12:19PM (#8887)
        User #3269 Info | http://www.atlarge.org/


        -g


        You hit the nail on the head.


        One of the most contentious issues that ICANN has to preside over is the timing of any future New TLDs. There is a worldwide debate about this and legitimate public interest.


        The "Proof of Concept" scenario (and need to Evaluate) has been used by the ICANN Board to justify their long and measured approach to the release of further NewTLDs.


        Indeed, they've used the shambolic roll-outs (of their own creation) as a justification for the need to delay and put back dates for any further extensions.


        I personally do not hold strong views one way or the other on the issue of further TLDs. I just want the system administered openly, honestly and with accountability. That isn't happening at the moment.


        With regard to the Evaluation Process, as you say, the NTEPPTaskForce has been cleverly steered and directed, and has spent time deciding "how" any future Evaluations should take place.


        Evaluations which should precede decisions which should precede contract bids which should precede Agreements which should precede the (as yet distant) roll-out of any more NewTLDs.


        This task force DOES however draw attention to the importance of the mandatory Evaluation reports which the Registries had to submit by specified deadlines.


        The NTEPPTF made the following recommendation to the ICANN Board:


        "Data available as a result of Appendix U (for unsponsored gTLDs)...
        (two other categories listed...)
        To the extent that data obtained from the first of these sources is not confidential, every effort should be made to publish it to encourage other studies to occur."


        (Section 9 - Evaluation Methodology)


        Appendix U specifically defined what data was to be available for publication (the vast majority of it). And this data is central to any evaluation.


        So if ICANN's own task force has said that "every effort should be made to publish" the Afilias documents, why hasn't the Board published these documents? Is the Board in possession of these documents?


        The Task Force wanted ICANN to "encourage other studies to occur" and linked this to access to the mandatory documents from Afilias stipulated in Appendix U of their Registry agreement.


        If the ICANN community in its various constituencies is to continue to play an INFORMED role in the vital New TLD Evaluation process, then the Board must not withhold this key data.


        I find it astonishing that the Board refuses to make any comment to repeated requests for information about this data, and access to it.


        I'd also like to say that as the NTEPPTF was used to plan "how" to evaluate, rather than to "do" the evaluation, it really doesn't seem that the Board has generated any momentum or participation at all over an issue that people are extremely concerned about - the issue of further New TLDs.


        I can accept that process should be conscientious and thorough : what I cannot accept is that ICANN should inhibit participation and information by withholding data and documents which it must - unless it has been negligent - have by now in its possession.


        That the Board refuses even to respond on this matter is, frankly, reprehensible.


        Richard Henderson


        [ Reply to This | Parent ]
      Re: Even ICANN's own Evaluation Task Force hasn't
      by Anonymous on Saturday September 07 2002, @09:12AM (#9114)
      This just begs for illumination.
      [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: ICANN silent on new gTLD evaluations
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Sunday September 01 2002, @04:23PM (#8899)
    User #2810 Info
    Vint Cerf has now responded to Richard Henderson, stating in full (other than quotes and salutations):
    my understanding is that at least some, if not all, reports have been received but some contain proprietary information. Before these reports can be released in public form, they have to be redacted to preserve the confidentiality of proprietary data. Staff has simply been busy with other work so this is still on the task queue.
    This seems like a great non-answer, which to me is an increasingly common problem with recent 'answers' from Vint Cerf, and which his busy staff seem happy to let him write.

    First, what are 'some'? Are they all that are required? If so, fine, but why not say so? If not, why not? Other than annual reports, all material was supposed to be reported within a range of 90 to 180 days, those periods are now well past for at least .biz and .info.

    Second, under 11. Confidentiality, the range of time that such information would be kept confidential was for a period of none at all ranging to 18 months. Surely some of these time restrictions are now well past. Simply saying that the staff is busy with other things is not acceptable. What other things? Who prioritized those other things as being more important tasks? Where are the minutes showing that the Board has made such a decision, or even that the staff has told (not asked, because that's not the way ICANN works) them that such a decision has been made? In short, where is this task queue? Vint? Staff?

    Third, 11. Confidentiality contains a table laying out which parts of which reports will be made available when. It isn't up to staff, nor should they have to, go through and redact anything. If a report from registry A states that section so and so is in answer to such and such a question, how hard is it to maintain a flat database that flags whether or not that is due for release under the rules? If no ICANN staff is competent to construct such in a couple of hours then can them and hire any of thousands who could.

    This isn't just a non-answer, it is misleading. I'm not accusing Vint of being deliberately misleading, the staff no doubt tells him this stuff and he just passes it on. Witness the cc's of the letter, do you think any of them will contradict him? And a few months down the road, after they have passed the hurdle of keeping the USG asleep, or after they have morphed into some other entity which can't be held accountable, we'll find out that this is a complete mess. What a scam, it's all smoke and mirrors. -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