Can I repeat this question, which I have been asking since May...
Where are the Registry NewTLD Evaluation reports which Afilias was supposed to have submitted (in compliance with Appendix U of their Registry Agreement with ICANN) and which was defined in almost all its sections as material which could be published for people to read and assess?
The ICANN NewTLDs Public Forum "has been established for comments and discussion about the process for evaluating the new TLDs". But ICANN ignores it, just as it has ignored public appeals for help, as their Agreements unravelled in the NewTLD roll-outs.
How is the public, and how are the various ICANN constituencies, supposed to participate in this evaluation process and make informed judgments, if the vital evidence and testimony of Registries like Afilias have not been made available?
Indeed, how can the process move forward to further NewTLDs, if nothing is learned from the first roll-outs and the assessment of the Registries' testimony has not even begun (because it's not available)?
In the context of the shambles and legal cases which arose from the info "abomination" [quote: Afilias director] and the .biz "illegal lottery" [lawyers fees: in excess of $1,000,000] what have the Registries themselves got to say about the process?
We do not know because ICANN is withholding this evidence!
Stuart Lynn (after about 6 months of silence) has said that ICANN have not yet been able to publish these reports because their staff have "been too busy".
This is an inexplicable excuse : my 12 year old daughter runs her own website and knows how to put documents up on the web. If it would help Mr Lynn, he can e-mail the Registry Reports to her and she'll do it for him in 24 hours.
ICANN makes a pretence of involving everyone (while at the same time the Board expels the elected representatives of ordinary users, and makes autocratic decisions without accountability). But if ICANN genuinely wants all constituencies to make informed judgments, how can it justify "protecting" the Registries which caused clear harm and loss to many consumers?
Stuart Lynn has described the ICANN Public Forums as "a joke". I put it to him, and the rest of his staff, that the request I have been making for months about these Registry Reports is serious, relevant to the Evaluation Process, and mandatory according to the ICANN-Registry Agreement.
It is not necessarily the participants of the ICANN forums who are the "joke", Mr Lynn. In failing to take seriously the actual consumers who make up the vast majority of those involved in the DNS... in failing to take seriously your own Agreements... in failing to accept the accountability brought to your Board by the At Large members you have chosen to expel...
...you demonstrate to DoC, to ITU, to the EU, to the UN, to the governments of the world who all require the DNS to be run fairly, openly, and professionally, that ICANN is a closed and unaccountable quango, a clique of insiders and friends, who IGNORE the questions and participation of others, and protect their own associates...
...you demonstrate to courts of law - such as the one shortly hearing the Davies case - that you fail to adhere to your own Agreements and Processes...
The history and archives of the NewTLDs forum (and its preceding one) demonstrate the way ordinary users repeatedly did detailed research, asked important questions, drew attention to serious fraud... and were repeatedly ignored by ICANN...
...at the same time that it was acting in this high-handed manner, its own Agreements with Registries were unravelling into the shambles and fiasco which came about because the loose and laissez faire Agreements had been written like an open door to anyone who wanted to exploit the system.
...not only was the system exploited, but it was exploited by its own Registries and their accredited registrars... even the Afilias CEO had a close association with the company which abused Afilias's rules and made money out of submitting ineligible applications.
...another Afilias director represented the Speednames company which submitted 4981 fake applications for a single applicant using "1899" phoney trademarks, and yet the company presumably chose to take the $500,000 for abusing the Agreement. When challenged, Speednames said they had asked Afilias to cancel and delete these 4981 applications to release them for the Landrush (in which case presumably the money could have been returned) but AFILIAS REFUSED TO PUT THIS RIGHT, even though the Agreement gave them specific powers to do so in these circumstances.
When the ICANN-Registry Agreements were abused in such ways, and genuine consumers were defrauded by the process, is it any wonder that Internet Users want elected representation on the ICANN Board? And is it any wonder, we believe the Registries should be called to account.
But where are the Evaluation Reports where they are supposed to give an account of what happened?
Missing. (Six, and in some cases nine, months after they were available for publication).
Jeff Davies should have little difficulty demonstrating to any court of law that the processes set up by ICANN and their Registries were ineffective, altered at will, ignored, abused, and resulted in a failure on ICANN's part to meet its mandate and commission: the fair and open distribution of the DNS to all parties without favour.
Mr Lynn: the ICANN forums and their archives have been saved for presentation in a court of law. These are ICANN's own forums. This post is a direct and relevant request concerning the Evaluation Process that your NewTLD forum has specifically been set up for.
By further ignoring posts like this, you demonstrate to the courts your obstructive tactics and evasion of accountability.
I put it to you that the Evaluation Process (of which Appendix U is a significant part) requires the immediate posting of these documents. To say, nine months after they could have been published, that ICANN staff haven't quite been able to get round to doing it, is neither credible nor acceptable.
"Cut" and "Paste" Mr Lynn. "Save." "FTP"
While you are instructing your staff to do this, could you kindly ask Mr Halloran to reply to the mail I sent him over 250 days ago, which raised matters of fraud and serious concern, and which he has not even bothered to acknowledge.
Has he been too busy too?