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    This discussion has been archived.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.
    Neustar seeks .org coup; will ICANN accede? | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 48 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.
    The Facts
    by Ken on Monday October 07 2002, @11:26AM (#9591)
    User #3509 Info
    Milton,

    I will let the facts speak for themselves.

    - The NCC evaluation team awarded points for "good works" which was a criteria specifically rejected by the Board in Accra

    - The NCC awarded points to those who offered financial support to the NCC. Again, this was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.

    - The NCC evalutation team awarded points for relationship with the noncommercial community. This also was not a criteria in the ICANN RFP.

    - The NCC evluation awarded points for those applicants that conducted "pre-bid surveys". This was not requested by the ICANN RFP and was not one of the ICANN RFP specified criteria.

    - The NCC awarded points for "post-bid responsiveness" to the NCC. Again, this is not in
    the ICANN RFP criteria. The evalution also, "took account of the relationship the bidder proposes with the NCDNHC after winning the bid..." Again...not in the ICANN RFP criteria.

    - By its own admission, the NCC's added new criteria from outside the ICANN RFP. Specifically, the NCC included new criteria to the process which were derived from a DNSO policy recommendation document and not the ICANN RFP. This is clear from the following statement which appeared in the NCC comments:

    "Overall our evaluation criteria were directly derived from the Request for Proposals (RFP) and the DNSO Policy consensus."

    - The additional criteria added by the NCC evaluation team tilted the playing field in the favor of applicants who were non-profits or had noncommercial affiliations. This is particularly true of criteria like 'good works" and "relationship with the community".

    - Your comments make a number of subjective and speculative comments that are not grounded in fact or supported by the evaluation reports (e.g. you know what we were thinking about our chances of being selected or what our motives are).

    - As the chairperson of the "Usage" evaluation team, your comments about the technical evaluations are not appropriate and further demonstration of bias.

    Ken Hansen, NeuStar
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: The Facts
    by Mueller ({mueller} {at} {syr.edu}) on Monday October 07 2002, @11:37AM (#9593)
    User #2901 Info | http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/
    >>> "Hansen, Ken" 10/07/02 03:21PM >>>

    >good works.

    I feel that Harold answered this, but even more could be said. As noted in our report, "good works" can be considered a form of "supportiveness to the noncommercial Internet user community," which is called for in the RFP. It can also be justified by the RFP's reference to considerations that "may be suggested by analysis and comparison of the proposals received." I.e., if several applicants make "good works" a substantial part of their proposal it is legitimate for the evaluators to use that factor to discriminate among the bids.

    > The NCC awarded points to those who offered
    >financial support to the NCC. Again, this was not
    >a criteria in the ICANN RFP.

    "Supportiveness to the noncommercial Internet user community" is called for in the RFP. NCDNHC is certainly part of that community, more directly so than, say, the Red Cross. We did not exclusively award points for support to NCC, as noted before. Your problem is not that you proposed to do nothing for NCC, but that you proposed to do nothing for the noncommercial internet user
    community.

    > The NCC evalutation team awarded points for relationship
    > with the noncommercial community. This also was not a criteria
    > in the ICANN RFP.

    Disagree. We simply tried to define specific, measurable ways in which to asssess the RFP's call for responsiveness to the noncommercial Internet community. A prior relationship is an attribute that can be identified and rated.

    >- The NCC evluation awarded points for those applicants
    >that conducted "pre-bid surveys". This was not requested
    >by the ICANN RFP and was not one of the ICANN RFP
    >specified criteria.

    Again, this was just an attempt to specify measurable ways in which to asssess the RFP's call for responsiveness to the noncommercial Internet
    community. You are on very weak ground here. The RFP gave some very general guidelines, the evaluators had to flesh them out to make specific rankings and comparisons.

    >"Overall our evaluation criteria were directly derived from the
    >Request for Proposals (RFP) and the DNSO Policy consensus."

    The RFP was based largely on the DNSO policy consensus, the only exception being the elimination of the requirement that the bidders be nonprofit. We followed that elimination, giving our top rank to a commercial applicant, and our third rank to a commercial applicant.

    >Your comments make a number of subjective and speculative
    >comments that are not grounded in fact or supported by the
    >evaluation reports (e.g. you know what we were thinking
    >about our chances of being selected or what our motives are).

    Now that the report is over, I am indeed speculating about what your motives are and what your thoughts were. But my personal comments on this list are not part of the Evaluation Report, as you well know, and have no relevance to the evaluation, which has been finished for a month. The independence of the Evaluation results from my personal opinions is solidly proven by the high ranking given to ISOC! I am not a fan of the ISOC/Afilias proposal, to put it mildly. But we applied our criteria and up they popped. I personally
    felt very favorable to SWITCH, but we applied our criteria and down they sank.

    > As the chairperson of the "Usage" evaluation team, your
    >comments about the technical evaluations are not
    >appropriate and further demonstration of bias.

    Huh? What comments about the technical evaluations?

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: Mr. Hanson
    by Anonymous on Monday October 07 2002, @12:52PM (#9598)
    If your the best spokesperson NS can come up with, I say lets just leave .org with Verisign. Seriously, you guys sound just as bad, except you whine more.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Thats Right Ken, The Facts
    by Anonymous on Monday October 07 2002, @01:01PM (#9600)
    If ICANN awards Neustar .org, it will only be to help bail them out. Neustar grossly misrepresented the balance sheet submitted to ICANN. It is all there on Neustar’s D&B report. I want to know why ICANN (or their agents) have not questioned this. Or did they not bother to look.

    In their application, they claimed to have current liabilities of $32M and total liabilities of $80M. What was filed with D&B shows current liabilities of $78M, long term debt of $32M, and an accumulated deficit of $40,306,715.

    What is most alarming is Neustar's ratio of liabilities to Net worth: 2.84. The industry average is .55.

    People. Pull up their Dun & Bradstreet report. End of Argument!

    [ 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