Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1404
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Saturday, August 31 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1404

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:04:46 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CDT Letter on .org

Rob and all assembly members,

  Thank you Rob for passing this letter along..  I personally cannot
endorse it however as it leaves out too much and is basically
of the "Milk Toast" varity as it is not forceful enough as to the
many .ORG domain name holders, of which I am one.

  I am also quite sure, but do not know yet that our [INEGroup]
members will also find CDT's letter that you have shared with
the GA members here, also inadequate by in large.  However
I passed it to our members earlier today for their review..

Rob Courtney wrote:

> Members of the General Assembly,
>
> CDT has just sent an open letter to the ICANN Board regarding the
> .org redelegation process. I'm attaching it here for your review;
> comments and responses are very welcome!
>
> Best,
>
> Rob Courtney
>
> * * *
>
> Vint Cerf
> Chairman
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601
>
> August 30, 2002
>
> Dear Dr. Cerf,
>
> As one of the Internet's most successful domains, .org's redelegation
> will implicate millions of registrants and affect the core of the
> Internet's non-commercial community. We commend the hard work done by
> many to date, and we view the recently-published staff report as a
> useful document for the Board's consideration. We therefore offer
> this open letter to you and the Board, urging that the broad
> interests of the non-commercial community be kept in mind as the
> staff report is finalized and the redelegation decision is taken.
>
> *Finding the Right Priorities in .org Bidder Evalution*
>
> The .org domain has always benefited from its unique position as a
> home for non-commercial activity amid the Internet's many commercial
> enterprises. CDT appreciates the Board's request to the
> Non-Commercial Constituency for a report evaluating the eleven
> registry applicants on certain criteria - largely touching on the
> .org registry's relationship with the non-commercial community  - and
> note that report's excellent evaluation of the applicants on those
> criteria.
>
> However, the final impact of the .org redelegation on the
> non-commercial Internet community will extend from all aspects of the
> registry's operation, not just its administrative structure or
> advisory practices. As many in the ICANN community know, technical
> capability, financial stability, and competency in customer service
> are critical considerations. For many, perhaps most, non-commercial
> domain name holders, these concerns come first and foremost. As such,
> we wish to underscore the following metrics and priorities for the
> evaluation of .org applicants:
>
>         * The .org registry must exist on a strong technical
> foundation. Redelegation cannot be considered a success if names do
> not resolve quickly, accurately, and reliably. Any other benefits
> that non-commercial organizations would receive from the new registry
> would have little value if this basic technical mission is not
> fulfilled. Registry applications should offer ample evidence of their
> technical plans' robustness, scalability, adaptability, and, above
> all, workability.
>
>         * The .org registry operator should have a workable financial
> model. The eleven applications before ICANN encompass a wide variety
> of approaches to funding the registry's operation. Even a cursory
> review of the domain names market will reveal that operating a major
> registry is a non-trivial undertaking; it is unlikely that every one
> of the eleven proposed approaches will succeed. A bankrupt registry
> operator will not be able to fulfill the registry's basic technical
> requirements, and the non-commercial community should make
> identification of workable financial models a high priority. The new
> registry will have a very short start-up time, and must be able to
> demonstrate its ability to be financially and technically stable on
> January 1, 2003. Several bidders have also expressed their intention
> to apply for the $5 million endowment offered by VeriSign to a
> non-profit registry operator. It is not yet clear whether all those
> bidders will qualify for the endowment, nor when or how the money
> will be paid out. Registry applicants' positions would be enhanced by
> publishing their plans in the event that the money is not immediately
> forthcoming.
>
>         * The .org registry requires rapid, effective customer
> support. Although the .org registry operator will not be involved in
> the retail sale of domain names, high-quality support for .org
> registrars will bring benefits to the .org registrant community as
> well. The ability of .org registrants to have their problems resolved
> and maintenance performed quickly and effectively would be a major
> benefit for the non-commercial Internet community.
>
>         * The .org registry operator's activities at ICANN should
> reflect its registrants' unique interests. As on of the world's five
> largest registries, .org constitutes a major slice of the
> international domain name community. Its operator will have
> significant influence in the gTLD Constituency (and any successor
> body) and in ICANN as a whole. The direction in which that authority
> is exercised are of great interest to registrants in .org. Registry
> applicants' plans for supporting registrants' interests at ICANN are
> a key aspect of their applications.
>
>         * When the registry operator addresses questions of registry
> policy, consultation with the registrant community should be a
> priority. Historically, the ICANN Board has assumed authority over
> questions of gTLD policy. Where the registry operator has sole
> discretion over a policy decision affecting registrants, however, it
> should be prepared to make such a decision only after substantial
> consultation with the registrant community. Structures of outreach,
> input, and advice should be outlined ahead of time.
>
>         * Applicants' creativity in posing new ways to support and
> expand the non-commercial community's use of .org should be
> recognized. The eleven applications have shown an impressive
> diversity of proposals for using .org to bring new benefits to the
> Internet's non-commercial community, providing a valuable indicator
> of the registry's potential. Such creativity should be acknowledged
> both by the Board and the community, and any ideas that cannot be
> implemented in the new .org should certainly be remembered for the
> future.
>
> Finally, as the Board approaches its decision on the .org
> redelegation, it is of paramount importance that it continues to
> employ open, transparent, and objective decision-making processes.
> Such a key decision should not be tarnished by appearances of
> arbitrariness, and a strong commitment to openness can prevent such
> misconceptions.
>
> CDT hopes the Board and the entire ICANN community will keep these
> priorities in mind as they continue their review of the staff report
> and the eleven applications. It is our continued belief that only
> applications achieving excellence in all of these areas would
> adequately serve the non-commercial Internet community.
>
> We look forward to the Board's progress on this important issue.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alan Davidson
> Associate Director
> Center for Democracy & Technology
>
> Rob Courtney
> Policy Analyst
> Center for Democracy & Technology
>
> cc:     ICANN Board of Directors
> --
>
> Rob Courtney
> Policy Analyst
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202 637 9800
> fax 202 637 0968
> [email-masked]
> http://www.cdt.org/
>
>   --
>
> Add your voice to the Internet policy debate!
>     JOIN THE CDT ACTIVIST NETWORK!
>       http://www.cdt.org/join/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:09:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] CDT Letter on .org

Todd and all assembly members,

  I would have to agree with Todd in his bet here.  However I not any
of our members see this as being all that concerning as .ORG has always
been in practice a "Open TLD"...  Remember .ORG originally meant or
stood for "Organizations".  That being the case, and the fact that
"Organizations" come in all types, NGO and non-NGO alike...

todd glassey wrote:

> As a side comment, I am willing to bet that more than 50% of the .org's
> registered and actively in use are support organizations of commercial
> entities or they are standards and operations consortiums that have a
> bottom-line impact on their peer .com/.net or others. This invalidates the
> concept that .org is the "NPO's Only" TLD...
>
> Todd
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rob Courtney" <[email-masked]>
> To: <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 3:32 PM
> Subject: [ga] CDT Letter on .org
>
> > Members of the General Assembly,
> >
> > CDT has just sent an open letter to the ICANN Board regarding the
> > .org redelegation process. I'm attaching it here for your review;
> > comments and responses are very welcome!
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rob Courtney
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > Vint Cerf
> > Chairman
> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> > Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601
> >
> >
> > August 30, 2002
> >
> >
> > Dear Dr. Cerf,
> >
> > As one of the Internet's most successful domains, .org's redelegation
> > will implicate millions of registrants and affect the core of the
> > Internet's non-commercial community. We commend the hard work done by
> > many to date, and we view the recently-published staff report as a
> > useful document for the Board's consideration. We therefore offer
> > this open letter to you and the Board, urging that the broad
> > interests of the non-commercial community be kept in mind as the
> > staff report is finalized and the redelegation decision is taken.
> >
> > *Finding the Right Priorities in .org Bidder Evalution*
> >
> > The .org domain has always benefited from its unique position as a
> > home for non-commercial activity amid the Internet's many commercial
> > enterprises. CDT appreciates the Board's request to the
> > Non-Commercial Constituency for a report evaluating the eleven
> > registry applicants on certain criteria - largely touching on the
> > .org registry's relationship with the non-commercial community  - and
> > note that report's excellent evaluation of the applicants on those
> > criteria.
> >
> > However, the final impact of the .org redelegation on the
> > non-commercial Internet community will extend from all aspects of the
> > registry's operation, not just its administrative structure or
> > advisory practices. As many in the ICANN community know, technical
> > capability, financial stability, and competency in customer service
> > are critical considerations. For many, perhaps most, non-commercial
> > domain name holders, these concerns come first and foremost. As such,
> > we wish to underscore the following metrics and priorities for the
> > evaluation of .org applicants:
> >
> > * The .org registry must exist on a strong technical
> > foundation. Redelegation cannot be considered a success if names do
> > not resolve quickly, accurately, and reliably. Any other benefits
> > that non-commercial organizations would receive from the new registry
> > would have little value if this basic technical mission is not
> > fulfilled. Registry applications should offer ample evidence of their
> > technical plans' robustness, scalability, adaptability, and, above
> > all, workability.
> >
> > * The .org registry operator should have a workable financial
> > model. The eleven applications before ICANN encompass a wide variety
> > of approaches to funding the registry's operation. Even a cursory
> > review of the domain names market will reveal that operating a major
> > registry is a non-trivial undertaking; it is unlikely that every one
> > of the eleven proposed approaches will succeed. A bankrupt registry
> > operator will not be able to fulfill the registry's basic technical
> > requirements, and the non-commercial community should make
> > identification of workable financial models a high priority. The new
> > registry will have a very short start-up time, and must be able to
> > demonstrate its ability to be financially and technically stable on
> > January 1, 2003. Several bidders have also expressed their intention
> > to apply for the $5 million endowment offered by VeriSign to a
> > non-profit registry operator. It is not yet clear whether all those
> > bidders will qualify for the endowment, nor when or how the money
> > will be paid out. Registry applicants' positions would be enhanced by
> > publishing their plans in the event that the money is not immediately
> > forthcoming.
> >
> > * The .org registry requires rapid, effective customer
> > support. Although the .org registry operator will not be involved in
> > the retail sale of domain names, high-quality support for .org
> > registrars will bring benefits to the .org registrant community as
> > well. The ability of .org registrants to have their problems resolved
> > and maintenance performed quickly and effectively would be a major
> > benefit for the non-commercial Internet community.
> >
> > * The .org registry operator's activities at ICANN should
> > reflect its registrants' unique interests. As on of the world's five
> > largest registries, .org constitutes a major slice of the
> > international domain name community. Its operator will have
> > significant influence in the gTLD Constituency (and any successor
> > body) and in ICANN as a whole. The direction in which that authority
> > is exercised are of great interest to registrants in .org. Registry
> > applicants' plans for supporting registrants' interests at ICANN are
> > a key aspect of their applications.
> >
> > * When the registry operator addresses questions of registry
> > policy, consultation with the registrant community should be a
> > priority. Historically, the ICANN Board has assumed authority over
> > questions of gTLD policy. Where the registry operator has sole
> > discretion over a policy decision affecting registrants, however, it
> > should be prepared to make such a decision only after substantial
> > consultation with the registrant community. Structures of outreach,
> > input, and advice should be outlined ahead of time.
> >
> > * Applicants' creativity in posing new ways to support and
> > expand the non-commercial community's use of .org should be
> > recognized. The eleven applications have shown an impressive
> > diversity of proposals for using .org to bring new benefits to the
> > Internet's non-commercial community, providing a valuable indicator
> > of the registry's potential. Such creativity should be acknowledged
> > both by the Board and the community, and any ideas that cannot be
> > implemented in the new .org should certainly be remembered for the
> > future.
> >
> > Finally, as the Board approaches its decision on the .org
> > redelegation, it is of paramount importance that it continues to
> > employ open, transparent, and objective decision-making processes.
> > Such a key decision should not be tarnished by appearances of
> > arbitrariness, and a strong commitment to openness can prevent such
> > misconceptions.
> >
> > CDT hopes the Board and the entire ICANN community will keep these
> > priorities in mind as they continue their review of the staff report
> > and the eleven applications. It is our continued belief that only
> > applications achieving excellence in all of these areas would
> > adequately serve the non-commercial Internet community.
> >
> > We look forward to the Board's progress on this important issue.
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> > Alan Davidson
> > Associate Director
> > Center for Democracy & Technology
> >
> > Rob Courtney
> > Policy Analyst
> > Center for Democracy & Technology
> >
> > cc: ICANN Board of Directors
> > --
> >
> > Rob Courtney
> > Policy Analyst
> > Center for Democracy & Technology
> > 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
> > Washington, DC 20006
> > 202 637 9800
> > fax 202 637 0968
> > [email-masked]
> > http://www.cdt.org/
> >
> >   --
> >
> > Add your voice to the Internet policy debate!
> >     JOIN THE CDT ACTIVIST NETWORK!
> >       http://www.cdt.org/join/
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 23:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Admin] Temporary posting rights suspension

Number of posts is such a silly criterion for suspension.
As we all know Jim's are short and going to the links provided is completely 
up to the readers.
But in this case it is completely political.
Who complained to the abuse line?
Why was he really suspended? was it TR or AS and who asked for it?
Abridgment of freedom of speech should not be so light?
Eric

> 
> The posting rights of Jim Fleming have been temporarily
>suspended because of violations of the GA list rules.
> 
>>- If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the number of
>>posts
>>  per person per day, this must be respected
> (from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html)
> 
>>The Chair of the GA has set the posting limit at FIVE postings per 
>>person, list and calendar day, calculated according to the sender's 
>>local time.
> (from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/GA.list-monitoring.html)
> 
> Jim Fleming has violated the posting limit again: He has done
>so before and had been warned on 18 August 2002.
> 
> Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:11:36 -0500
> Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:55:32 -0500
> Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:43:51 -0500
> Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:44:24 -0500
> Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:03:48 -0500
> Fri, 16 Aug 2002 20:42:06 -0500
> Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:00:41 -0500
> 
> Thu, 29 Aug 2002 00:45:22 -0500
> Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:37:54 -0500
> Thu, 29 Aug 2002 07:47:56 -0500
> Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:13:41 -0500
> Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:22:54 -0500 
> Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:35:58 -0500
> Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:01:12 -0500
> Thu, 29 Aug 2002 19:26:35 -0500
> Thu, 29 Aug 2002 20:23:40 -0500
> 
> 
>>A list monitor may impose 2 sanctions against offenders:
>>
>>- Monitoring of posts. This will cause delay of postings from the
>>affected 
>>  individual until a list moderator approves them as being within the
>>  content  rules, or rejects them
>>- Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that person
>>not to be
>>  sent to the GA list.
>>
>>Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2
>>weeks),  and are announced on the mailing list. Repeat offenders may
>>get correspondingly  longer sentences (for instance 4 weeks for a
>>second offense, 8 weeks for a third). The period is decided by the list
>>monitor.
> (from http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html)
> 
> Jim Fleming's posting rights have already been suspended for two weeks 
> in the past. The current suspension of posting rights therefore lasts
> four weeks.
> 
> Best regards,
> /// GA List Monitor
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:56:08 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Sorry for the length (please don't quote this message in full when
replying on the GA list!) /// Alexander  

- ------------------------------------------------------------
.org Reassignment: Applicant Comments on Preliminary Evaluation 
Report on .org Proposals
(Received through 29 August 2002)
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments-on-preliminary-report.htm
- ------------------------------------------------------------

Some picks from the actual comments:

SWITCH:
 "The technical part of the proposal was written by engineers for engineers."
 "We also note a strong unbalance with regard to the evaluation team-members 
  origin: this evaluation process was an All-American play.
  No comment on the obvious personal interconnection between ICANN, ISOC and 
  Afilias but it would be unwise to believe that this situation contributed 
  positively to a neutral evaluation process."
 "[Does not communicate understanding of major TLD transition]
  This is a weak point in our proposal and we regard the critic as valid. 
  The transition plan should have provided more detailed information and there 
  were no milestones for ICANN to evaluate the process in our proposal."
 "We consider the NCDNHC evaluation process as more neutral and more objective 
  than the technical process but it also was dominated by US interests 
  although the member list looks like it had more diversity."
 "ICANN itselfev aluated the bidder’s qualification for the endowment. In our 
  case ICANN relies on an assumption and a speculation. We consider both as 
  non-founded."
 "In our view the ORG evaluation process could have been a showcase for ICANN 
  to demonstrate openness, fairness and global thinking. ICANN, however, chose 
  to honor the closest bidder in an American-dominated process we consider as 
  highly nontransparent (evaluation by academic team not communicated, 
  weighting of criteria unknown, important criteria not considered etc.). This
  ICANN managed ORG evaluation process was in our view not as fair as it could 
  have been."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/switch-29aug02.pdf

IMS/ISC:
 "There was no technical due diligence conducted as part of the evaluation. Past
  performance claims are not documented and no examination of code, logs, or 
  configurations was conducted."
 "The evaluation was all theory and no practice. Since the distance between 
  theory and practice is so much smaller in theory than in practice, it is no 
  surprise that the evaluations were able to boil complex problems down to simple 
  metrics."
 "We have thus posted an open letter at 
  <http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000270.shtml> and invite your comments as 
  well as those of our fellow .organisms."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/ims-isc-29aug02.htm

UNITY REGISTRY:
 "No detail of the decision making process for the Academic CIO brief evaluation 
  was provided by ICANN. Given the disparity between the Academic and Gartner 
  evaluations, we would therefore respectfully request that the detailed report, 
  including decision making process, be provided or the evaluation disregarded."
 "Given the issues outlined in this letter, Unity Registry believes it would be 
  prudent for Gartner to perform a re-evaluation taking into account the above 
  information."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/unity-29aug02.pdf

UIA
 "These concerns fall into three major categories:
  1. Setting the record straight: basic inaccuracies in the evaluations that may 
     have affected our rankings;
  2. Issues related to fundamental flaws in the process and methodologies 
     employed, which have resulted in a number of the evaluation teams falling 
     back upon highly subjective approaches also detrimental to our evaluation; and
  3. General concerns for the future democratic governance of the internet."
 "3. We regret that more attention was not given to the confidentiality of the bid 
     process and its disassociation from ICANN politics {2}. It would have been 
     preferable to have the sealed bids handled by an independent body rather than 
     give rise to situations in which ICANN is seen to be so intimately
     associated with the lead candidate."
 "Where is the instability or difficulty of transition? Were we penalized because 
  we chose the simplest and safest option for transitioning .org by changing the 
  operator first and the equipment later?"
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/uia-29aug02.pdf

DOTORG FOUNDATION
  "In trying to understand the NCDNHC’s review, we were frankly concerned by the 
   many mistakes we and others noted in the report. We have analyzed the report 
   carefully and provide two documents which we hope will address any concerns 
   ICANN may have as a result of the NCDNHC report."
  "Our spreadsheets demonstrate what happens when one or more errors are corrected. 
   Scoring can shift to a startling degree."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/dotorgfoundation-29aug02.htm

GLOBAL NAME REGISTRY
  "The financial problems of both ISOC and NeuStar have been documented and need 
   to be evaluated in consideration of their ability to operate .org."
  "In particular, Gartner's publication of an analytical report on NeuStar in 
   the middle of the .org application process ("NeuStar: One of the Best 
   Kept-Secrets in Telecom," by David Fraley, 06 May 2002, available on 
   www.gartner.com) raises questions whether its more extensive knowledge of 
   NeuStar's systems may have given that bidder an unfair advantage."
  "Since the CIO Team did not provide much detail as to its methodology or 
   findings, we question the reliability of its process and the weight attributed 
   to its determination."
  "While we appreciate the voluntary efforts of the NCDNHC team, aspects of its 
   report concern us. Its methodology for measuring the level of public support 
   was flawed. Also, the report contains inconsistencies in evaluation of the 11 
   applicants and mathematical errors."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/gnr-29aug02.htm

ISOC
 "Should ISOC be selected, we will form a new not-for-profit company  the Public 
  Interest Registry (PIR) to run the .ORG registry. PIR’s board will be appointed 
  by ISOC, but PIR will be a separate legal entity and isolated from ISOC 
  financially and operationally. PIR (not ISOC) will enter into the registry 
  management agreement with ICANN, and PIR will contract with Afilias for all 
  back-end registry services. Our agreement with Afilias provides that Afilias will 
  cover the start-up, transition, and initial operating costs and will then be 
  repaid by PIR for these expenses over the course of the agreement."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/isoc-29aug02.htm

.ORG FOUNDATION
 "The Academic CIO and the ICANN General Counsel Evaluation Reports were 
  disappointing in many respects. Our main concern is that no relevant data 
  was provided to substantiate the rankings given to each bid. This creates 
  a sense that the reports are overtly subjective and biased in their 
  conclusions."
 "First and foremost, The .Org Foundation requests that the NCDNHC Evaluation 
  Report be completely discarded. We are truly alarmed that the NCDNHC Report 
  stated on page 20 that The .Org Foundation "did not respond to the NCDNHC 
  questions, nor to any other substantive questions on the list". This is a 
  completely false and highly prejudicial statement."
 "Regarding the Gartner report, based on the significant inaccuracies stated 
  as justification for our low ranking we hereby request that Gartner or 
  the ICANN Staff re-evaluate our proposal and publish the findings."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/orgfoundation-29aug02.htm

NEUSTAR, INC.
 "Overall, NeuStar submits that Gartner produced a credible and sound evaluation. 
  As with any complex evaluation, however, certain of Gartner’s statements are 
  incorrect or are based upon false assumptions, while others require 
  clarification by NeuStar."
 "ISOC has no registry experience." (...) "DotOrg Foundation has no registry 
  experience." (...) "Register.Org has no registry experience." (...)
  "GNR outsources its registry operations," (...)
 "The CIO Team Evaluation incorrectly concludes that the ISOC bid has a strong, 
  lowrisk organizational model."
 "Given the severely flawed nature of some of the analysis contained within 
  those reports, the recommendations contained within the Staff Report are
  premature and improper."
 "The NCDNHC Evaluation Report (the “NCDNHC Report”), in particular, cannot be
  accepted on its face, if it is considered at all."
 "Given the significant issues raised here and in NeuStar’s assessment of the 
  Evaluation Reports, it is clear that the Staff Report prematurely selects ISOC 
  as the best candidate for transition of .org. In particular, the highly 
  flawed NCDNHC analysis is an insufficient basis for the final selection of 
  the ISOC bid."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/neustar-29aug02.htm

ORGANIC NAMES
 "Organic Names is disappointed with the Draft ICANN Staff Report, both in terms 
  of its recommendation, but also (and more seriously), in regard to substantive 
  inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and inconsistencies within the process."
 "Instead, it appears that the size of an organisation, rather than its ability, 
  or /successful/ past experience, seems to be the main characteristic that 
  brings organisations to the top of the list."
 "[NCDNHC Evaluation:] Organic Names submits that this is one of the most 
  inconsistent, ill prepared, and badly argued reports its principals have 
  thus-far encountered."
 "Emails that appeared to be from the subcommittees (whose identities were not 
  known to Organic Names) were referred to ICANN to determine whether ICANN 
  wished us to answer them. In each case, the answer was ‘no’."
 "We received no questions from the NCDNHC."
 "If ICANN wish to ascertain support from others in the community it should 
  commission a market survey company with statistical experience and put relevant 
  questions to a statistically valid sample of people (...)"
 "We suggest that the NCDNHC evaluation is flawed on many levels and we urge 
  the ICANN board and staff to ignore it. We believe many other applicants hold 
  similar opinions."
 "Organic Names is concerned that none of the evaluators on the Gartner team 
  appeared to be wellknown or knowledgeable in matters of the DNS."
 "In reviewing the Gartner Group's evaluation we seriously wonder if they have 
  read our proposal."
 "It is Organic Names’ position that the draft report does not achieve the level 
  of professionalism and independence that we should expect from ICANN or any 
  body associated with the United States Department of Commerce."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/organic-29aug02.pdf

REGISTER ORGANIZATION
 "While bidders were required to submit recent annual financial reports and 
  other financial data with their proposals, it appears that neither Gartner 
  nor the Academic CIOs examined that data or considered financial stability
  to be relevant in its review."
 "B. The Academic CIO Team Evaluation Is Highly Subjective, Provides No Analysis
  And Relies On Inappropriate Criteria. It Therefore Must Be Disregarded In The
  Staff Report."
 "RegisterOrg greatly appreciates the recognition by the Gartner Report that it
  provides a grade A technology plan."
 "Although RegisterOrg was rated extremely well by the NCDNHC on a variety of 
  criteria, the NCDNHC, in some instances, appears to have misunderstood
  RegisterOrg’s proposal and relied on some inaccurate data that we believe 
  adversely impacted the weighted ranking of the bidders."
 "Several of the bidders already manage significantly large global registries. 
  Should any of those bidders be awarded the .org registry, that applicant would 
  control registries large enough to constitute another VeriSign. To that end, 
  RegisterOrg suggests that the goal of increasing competition at the registry 
  level requires the selection of an applicant with the technical capability and
  experience to operate the .org registry whose selection will further diversify 
  registry management and promote competition."
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applicant-comments/register-29aug02.htm 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:34:06 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Alexander,

Any thoughts on GNR's complaint that Neustar may have an unfavorable
advantage over GNR because of Gartner's prior analysis? What I mean is given
GNR's technical & economic association with Verisign, wouldn't GNR benefit
from a similar evaluative bias given that Verisign's operation could be
viewed as the standard by which all other comers are being judged? One would
assume that the technical evaluators would have a high degree of
pre-existing familiarity with Verisign and therefore GNR.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc11/msg00038.html

"In particular, Gartner's publication of an analytical report on NeuStar in
   the middle of the .org application process ("NeuStar: One of the Best
   Kept-Secrets in Telecom," by David Fraley, 06 May 2002, available on
   www.gartner.com) raises questions whether its more extensive knowledge of
   NeuStar's systems may have given that bidder an unfair advantage."

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg03513.html

Svensson: "to what extent is .name operated by VeriSign?

>(C18.6) - "Global Name Registry has transferred a part of the .name
>Registry function to VeriSign under an agreement to operate part of the
>.name TLD

Thanks,

                     -rwr

Got Blog? http://www.byte.org/blog

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of
thought which they seldom use."
 - Soren Kierkegaard

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>
To: "DNSO General Assembly" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:56 AM
Subject: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 14:37:31 +0200
From: steinle<[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

You can browse the decision in full with links to the exhibits and proofs under http://sex.shop.steinle.biz

See e.g. the Complainants "website", see the link to the Complainants abuse trademark registrations, see the link to the Case "Amazon.com, Inc v. Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian et al, docket C00-1740R (U.S.D.C. W.D.Wa.)", look who has registered the domain name http://www.pizza.hut, ...

Simon
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:16:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

hi - i can't reach http://sex.shop.steinle.biz - i'm don't use usg root
servers and the usg .biz is not recognized.  would you have an alternative
url instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz

regards
joe baptista

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, steinle wrote:

> You can browse the decision in full with links to the exhibits and proofs under http://sex.shop.steinle.biz
>
> See e.g. the Complainants "website", see the link to the Complainants abuse trademark registrations, see the link to the Case "Amazon.com, Inc v. Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian et al, docket C00-1740R (U.S.D.C. W.D.Wa.)", look who has registered the domain name http://www.pizza.hut, ...
>
> Simon
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 17:02:38 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Hello Ross,

At 31.08.2002 08:34, Ross Rader wrote:
>Any thoughts on GNR's complaint that Neustar may have an unfavorable
>advantage over GNR because of Gartner's prior analysis? 

The report on NeuStar was written by David Fraley of Gartner's
Network Infrastructure group. NeuStar's registry services are
part of that report. There has also been a report on 
how VeriSign cut their fraud rates (fraud against VeriSign, 
that is). It's hard to tell what's in the NeuStar report
without paying the 795 US$, but from the table of contents,
it looks rather like a company portrait, not an in-depth
analysis of their domain name business or their .org chances.

That said, I don't believe that Gartner's prior analysis of
NeuStar has had a significant impact on their recent report.
At least I don't see anything in the Gartner report for ICANN
which indicates that they were more familiar with NeuStar than
with other bidders.

>What I mean is given
>GNR's technical & economic association with Verisign, wouldn't GNR benefit
>from a similar evaluative bias given that Verisign's operation could be
>viewed as the standard by which all other comers are being judged? One would
>assume that the technical evaluators would have a high degree of
>pre-existing familiarity with Verisign and therefore GNR.

GNR gets a 3.48 Gartner score for criterion 1 (stability);
UIA using VeriSign gets a 3.60 score, Afilias scores 3.67,
NeuStar 3.85. It doesn't look like GNR's association with
VeriSign has made a tremendous impression, and some bids
were rated higher than the one using VeriSign (UIA).

It's understandable that almost all the bidders are unhappy
with the evaluation reports which rate them down. However,
there are some points which stick out:
- -- The Academic CIO analysis with its "group discussion"
   approach is not suitable for such an evaluation, since
   the ranking is intransparent. Five academic CIOs stating
   that their "team feels [!] that two proposals, NeuStar and 
   ISOC, were the strongest" is utterly unconvincing.
- -- The NCDNHC report is much more transparent; unfortunately,
   some errors made it into the published version. Even
   though transparent, the evaluation method is of course
   debatable and it seems that there have been problems
   with contacting some of the bidders (e.g. Organic Names).
- -- The Gartner evaluation states criteria and evaluation in
   detail. Even though there are mistakes or at least areas
   where bidders disagree, it is quite transparent. Where
   errors are clear, they should be corrected (as in all other
   reports).
- -- The Staff Report should not have recommended a particular
   bidder, and I hope the Board makes it clear to their staff
   that this should never happen again! How is the Board to
   retain their judgement if staff posts a press announcement
   titled "Preliminary Report to ICANN Board: ISOC to Run .org?"?

Best regards,
/// Alexander

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1404
*************************