Fair question. Of course, Sebastien or Paul Twomey could enlighten us if they chose to engage in an open dialogue, here or elsewhere.

One of my main issues with ICANN, though, is the abuse of process or the abandonment of process.

Analyse the process put to the ICANN Board for this Process:

Stuart Lynn made it clear in his Action Plan (which he presented to the Board and which they instructed him to implement) that he would

(a) form a TEAC to guide and oversee the soliciting of this contract... and Stuart Lynn said he was going to draft in the previous members of the Task Force to do this...

In the event, Sebastien was appointed prior to any TEAC... I know this, having consulted with Task Force members... a couple of them were told in Rio of the idea for a TEAC, and told Sebastien would be heading the Evaluation... and then... nothing... no TEAC meetings, no TEAC mention in the ICANN committee list... no TEAC mailing list... nothing...

Also, the TEAC was meant to guide the appointee and oversee his work and produce quarterly reports... again... nothing... indeed, when one Task Force member asked for access of the missing Appendix U Registry Evaluation Reports, they were told No, because only ICANN staff and a few others could view these...

Furthermore, this contract (with a $300,000 budget) was supposed to result from solicting bidS... note the plural... I know of no evidence of ads going out, or recruitment, or attempts to attract professional independent alternatives to Sebastien... so what happened to this part of the process?

Finally for now, Sebastien himself has stated that his report will be published this October... well that means that it's due within 4 days!!! So perhaps we will see its magic appearance - without any public interface or participation, without as yet even a published announcement of Sebastien's role on the ICANN website... perhaps, in these next 4 days, we shall see what ICANN offers us for that money...

...however much they paid...

And don't forget, it was money which came from the $2million raised from applicants for the previous new TLDS

My objection is that - as with the non-appearance of the Registry Evaluation Reports - this is just so amateurish, and lacking in due process... and it does nothing to promote a belief in ICANN's serious intent to develop objective criteria, based on objective and detailed evaluation, to inform them and inform others on how best to proceed and select further NewTLDs

But yes, indeed, it would be interesting to know specifically what was paid, what is produced, and why the stated process was abandoned in favour of...

Stuart and Paul just setting up something (something from which the public was locked out) on their own?

Richard Henderson