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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    NewTLDs : The Long and Winding Road | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 51 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.
    New TLD Evaluation
    by JeffD on Thursday October 30 2003, @08:55AM (#12574)
    User #3702 Info

    As always, I have to applaud and admire your stamina in refusing to allow this topic to die without resolution.

    The implementation of the new TLD's in 2001 - and particularly the Sunrise policies that were made an integral part of the process - should not be allowed to escape detailed scrutiny due to the mass abuse of the process and other reasons clearly identified in your message - issues that ICANN seems determined to ignore.

    Re. Ben Edleman's comments, I have already carried out a quantitive analysis of the effectiveness of the release of the .info TLD under Sunrise conditions. It was published on this forum and is also available at http://www.infous.com/ICANNAfilias/AnalysisSunrise Reg.asp.

    This analysis - conducted in April 2003 of 14,092 Sunrise registrations based on a claim to a US trademark - concluded that the Sunrise process had significantly hindered the use of the new TLD addresses to create new Internet content by new Internet registrants. It found that only 4 of these registrations had led to new Internet content being provided. Only one of these was for a purpose associated with the trademark on which the registration was based. No-one has taken issue with the data or conclusions.

    It is, therefore, little wonder that ICANN has declined to produce the evaluation reports that were required by its own agreements to be completed and published. I personally doubt that they were ever produced - otherwise ICANN would have a very hard time explaining their failure to publish them. I think it is much more likely that they connived with the various registries that they should not be produced - and hoped that delay and avoidance would eventually lead to the issue being forgotten. The current lame attempt to conduct a much scaled-back evaluation - citing lack of funds - should not be allowed to avoid this issue being fully evaluated as originally agreed.

    As this issue is fundamental to my Federal lawsuit against them, I have requested that Afilais provide their evaluation reports to me as part of the process of discovery. Although this request was made several months ago, Afilias has, so far, not provided any of the requested information. In early August they advised me that they would only provide information if I agreed to a confidentiality agreement which they were preparing to send to me. I have still not received it nor any substantive response to further requests for documents. If there are any attorneys out there who have experience of discovery being limited by confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements and wish to assist, I would be happy to hear from them.

    Keep up the good work, Richard. That YesNIC still exists as an ICANN and Afilias accredited registrar is ample evidence that both ICANN and Afilias have a LONG way to go to demonstrate accountability for the legitimacy and honesty of the processes under their control.

    And, in case anyone is wondering, I am not done with legal action against ICANN and the DoC...

    Jeff Davies
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:New TLD Evaluation
    by Richard_Henderson on Thursday October 30 2003, @03:47PM (#12577)
    User #3269 Info | http://www.atlarge.org/

    I'm surprised that Afilias are requiring a confidentiality agreement, when one of the conditions laid down in Appendix U of their Registry Agreement with ICANN stated that these Evaluation Reports (excepting a few clearly defined and separable elements) were not confidential and were to be available for disclosure.

    Click here for Appendix U [icann.org]

    Section 10 of Appendix U states that Category 1 items may be publicly disclosed by ICANN 18 months after the information is reported to ICANN.

    It states that Category 2 items may be publicly disclosed by ICANN 6 months after the information is reported to ICANN.

    It states that Category 3 items may be publicly disclosed by ICANN 3 months after the last date to which the information relates.

    And it states that for Category 4 items no confidentiality restrictions whatsoever exist.

    Section 10 of Appendix U goes on to say that "Afilias shall clearly label all reports and information provided pursuant to this Appendix with the appropriate confidentiality category prior to submission to ICANN."

    ICANN further clearly define that there are 9 Category 1 items; 21 Category 2 items; 50 Category 3 items; and 50 Category 4 items with no restrictions on disclosure at all.

    As Vint Cerf informed me in early summer of 2002 that ICANN staff needed time to collate these reports, and Stuart Lynn informed me in July 2002 that staff had been "too busy to ftp the reports onto the website"... "but this is now being addressed", you can deduct that at least 15 months has passed since ICANN received these Registry Evaluation Reports - indeed they were due in well before this.

    I can see no reason, under the mandatory requirements of the Agreement, which Afilias signed, why any of these elements could now claim confidentiality - disclosure was part of the Agreement, so that constituencies could participate in the NewTLDs Evaluation Process... that was the whole point of the Evaluation reports and the 'Proof of Concept' process!

    A further year has passed since ICANN stated on its website, in response to my question, that this matter of publication was being addressed. And still the Appendix U Registry Reports have not been disclosed.

    "Staff have been to busy" was the excuse 15 months ago... how long does it take to ftp these pages onto their website?

    The NTEPPTF in its Report (which was adopted by the ICANN Board itself) specifically mentioned this Appendix U data, and its importance to the Evaluation Process - and urged the Board to publish it as soon as possible.

    And the Board adopted this report!

    I find it extraordinary that ICANN will not explain why it has withheld this data. I asked Paul Twomey about this 5 months ago, and he hasn't even acknowledged my mail. As you know, I have other detailed correspondence with Dan Halloran, which has now gone unacknowledged over 500 days.

    The management of the NewTLD launch and the NewTLD Process is demonstrably inept, arbitrary, irresponsible and wholly amateurish. The Process was corrupted at several points and ICANN failed to adequately address the corruption or put it right. On the contrary, they appeared fully informed, but presided over the abuse of their own agreements. They chose not to intervene, even though they had contractual powers to do so.


    Richard Henderson

    [ 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