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