Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1407
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST         Tuesday, September 3 2002         Volume 01 : Number 1407

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

Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 08:26:30 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

Carl Malamud wrote:
> ok, I'm totally confused.  I went back and re-read all the reporting
> requirements in the tld agreements and still can't think of a single example
> of what such proprietary data might be in the various mandated technical
> reports (and I tried *really* hard.  :)

The new registries ranked each of the Appendix U reporting requirements into
various categories of confidentiality. I tried to shed a little light on
this practice when it was first disclosed by linking these color-coded
charts from my weblog:

http://www.lextext.com/bizconfidential.htm
(Neustar's confidential designations)

http://www.lextext.com/infoconfidential.htm
(Afilias' confidential designations)

At least in the first instance, the new registries designated over 50% of
their reporting data as having some degree of confidentiality. Silly.

Nevertheless, for most of the early data, the confidentiality period has
expired. 

         -- Bret

- -- 
Bret Fausett | [email-masked] | http://www.lextext.com
Hancock Rothert & Bunshoft, LLP     Los Angeles, California
      Follow the ICANN Blog: http://icann.blog.us
___________________________________________________________

- --
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: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:27:16 -0400
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

> To be clear, what we have described in our .org application is a technical
system that has been developed, built and will continue to be operated
solely by Global Name Registry.  Nothing in our application alludes to any
system, or even components of a system, built by VeriSign.  Therefore, this
puts us on an even playing field with only those bidders who have not had
the opportunity to have our systems reviewed by Gartner.
>
> This may or may not have hurt us and other similarly situated bidders - we
just don't know.  Our point in raising this issue was simply that (1)
previous knowledge about any of the bidders should have been disclosed prior
to evaluation, and (2) with the existence of Gartner's previous knowledge
about any of the bidders (and therefore the uncertainty of whether this
resulted in any advantage of one bidder over another) it can't be said
unequivocally that the evaluation was thoroughly impartial or based solely
on the evidence provided in each of the carefully prepared bids.

K, understood - a couple of further questions then Karen.

In your response to the eval's you indicate that you are using, exclusively,
technical systems that were developed in house, and that these systems have
been designed to handle the needs of .org. Why aren't these same systems
being used to handle the needs of .name? Despite the allegations that you
are making against Neustar and Afilias, it would seem to me that they are
better positioned, technically, to run the operation simply by viture of
having spent the last two years building and ironing out their technical
operations in the .us, .info and .biz contexts whereas with GNR, what we get
sort of amounts to a "we've built something that doesn't rely on Verisign's
infrastructure and it might work." from GNR.

Lastly, which I think is the more important point, we've not heard (or at
least, I haven't seen) what the details of Verisign's economic relationship
is with GNR. Given that we have a limited field of registry operators and
given the competition is key to supplier innovation, decent price
structures, service etc. (and given that I like to think that we are an
important customer of the new registry operator) it would be useful to know
what the details of this relationship are in order that I/we can make an
informed judgement as to whether or not GNR's relationship with Verisign is
one that I can believe will not work against my interests over the longer
term.

Pointers to past comments and/or clarifications here would be useful.

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: "Karen Elizaga" <[email-masked]>
To: "Alexander Svensson" <[email-masked]>; "DNSO General Assembly"
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:24 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

> Hello Ross & Alexander,
>
> To be clear, what we have described in our .org application is a technical
system that has been developed, built and will continue to be operated
solely by Global Name Registry.  Nothing in our application alludes to any
system, or even components of a system, built by VeriSign.  Therefore, this
puts us on an even playing field with only those bidders who have not had
the opportunity to have our systems reviewed by Gartner.
>
> This may or may not have hurt us and other similarly situated bidders - we
just don't know.  Our point in raising this issue was simply that (1)
previous knowledge about any of the bidders should have been disclosed prior
to evaluation, and (2) with the existence of Gartner's previous knowledge
about any of the bidders (and therefore the uncertainty of whether this
resulted in any advantage of one bidder over another) it can't be said
unequivocally that the evaluation was thoroughly impartial or based solely
on the evidence provided in each of the carefully prepared bids.
>
> Regards.
> KE
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexander Svensson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 31 August 2002 16:03
> To: DNSO General Assembly
> Cc: Ross Wm. Rader
> 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
>
>
>
> Information contained herein is Global Name Registry Proprietary
Information and is made available to you because of your interest in our
company.    This information is submitted in confidence and its disclosure
to you is not intended to constitute public disclosure or authorization for
disclosure to other parties.
> *****************
> What's your .name?
> Get one at www.name
> *****************
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:21:29 -0700
From: "M. Stuart Lynn" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

There is confusion in the question and some of the subsequent responses.

The appendices to which you refer have relevance to the evaluation 
itself not to the NTEPPTF report. The latter is not an evaluation, 
but contains recommendations to the board on how to proceed with an 
evaluation. The task force did not require access to these appendices 
or any other similar information in order to frame its 
recommendations.

Stuart

At 3:25 PM +0100 9/1/02, Richard Henderson wrote:
>
>
>Why hasn't the NTEPPTF had access to the "Proof of Concept 
>Evaluation reports" which had to be submitted by Afilias, in 
>accordance with Appendix U of the .info Agreement with ICANN?
>
>This task force was specifically set up by the Board to Evaluate the 
>New TLDs. How can it have done so without access to the vital data?
>
>Has this data been fully submitted by Afilias?
>
>Where is it?
>
>Why hasn't it been provided, even to the Task Force set up to 
>evaluate it? I have had it confirmed to me by members of this Task 
>Force that these documents have not been provided to them.
>
>Will Stuart Lynn now please confirm that all the documents have been 
>properly submitted, and will the NTEPPTF please now reconvene and 
>submit a revised report based on this data?
>
>And will the ICANN Board please make this data available for others 
>too, as specifically allowed under the terms of Appendix U?
>
>What is the point of a "proof of concept" or an evaluation process 
>if you withhold the vital data from the Registries involved?
>
>It makes it seem like the Board wants to "go through the motions" 
>without having to address all the details.
>
>Richard Henderson
>

- --
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 22:05:37 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

- --=======639D5FA8=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3A14E74; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I am confused here.
Would you mean that to proprely advise the Board, the NTEPPTF had not to 
get real facts, and was not interested either? Or do I read you wrong?
jfc

At 19:21 02/09/02, M. Stuart Lynn wrote:
>There is confusion in the question and some of the subsequent responses.
>The appendices to which you refer have relevance to the evaluation itself 
>not to the NTEPPTF report. The latter is not an evaluation, but contains 
>recommendations to the board on how to proceed with an evaluation. The 
>task force did not require access to these appendices or any other similar 
>information in order to frame its recommendations.
>Stuart
>
>At 3:25 PM +0100 9/1/02, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>Why hasn't the NTEPPTF had access to the "Proof of Concept Evaluation 
>>reports" which had to be submitted by Afilias, in accordance with 
>>Appendix U of the .info Agreement with ICANN?
>>
>>This task force was specifically set up by the Board to Evaluate the New 
>>TLDs. How can it have done so without access to the vital data?
>>Has this data been fully submitted by Afilias?
>>Where is it?
>>Why hasn't it been provided, even to the Task Force set up to evaluate 
>>it? I have had it confirmed to me by members of this Task Force that 
>>these documents have not been provided to them.
>>Will Stuart Lynn now please confirm that all the documents have been 
>>properly submitted, and will the NTEPPTF please now reconvene and submit 
>>a revised report based on this data?
>>And will the ICANN Board please make this data available for others too, 
>>as specifically allowed under the terms of Appendix U?
>>What is the point of a "proof of concept" or an evaluation process if you 
>>withhold the vital data from the Registries involved?
>>It makes it seem like the Board wants to "go through the motions" without 
>>having to address all the details.
>>Richard Henderson

- --=======639D5FA8=======--

- --
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: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 23:48:40 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

On 2002-09-02 22:05:37 +0200, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:

>Would you mean that to proprely advise the Board, the NTEPPTF had 
>not to get real facts, and was not interested either? Or do I read 
>you wrong? jfc

As far as I understand it, the reasoning goes like this: NTEPPTF  
was the group which produced the list of questions to be looked at  
during the evaluation (including priorities).

The data will be needed to answer these questions, but they were not 
needed in order to ask them.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 22:53:36 +0200
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

If that works that perfectly...what do you think about that:
http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/private/adns-customers/2002-August/000003.h
tml

Please let me know.

Simon

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, September 01, 2002 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Groundbreaking NAF Decision in NEW.NET Domain Case

> thank you Simon - that works perfectly
>
> kindest regards
> joe baptista
>
> p.s. looks like this chap Von Eric Lerner Kalaydjian has a bit of a
> history.
>
>
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Now you could use http://www.steinle.law.pro or http://sex.shop.law.pro
> > instead of http://sex.shop.steinle.biz .
> > This works in the ORSC, in the Name.Space and in the Pacific Root.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joe Baptista" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "steinle" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 4:16 PM
> > 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
> > >

- --
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: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:13:04 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

Carl, Vint and all assembly members,

  Carl is right here I believe.  I too could not find any requirement or even
suggestion that any information in the reporting requirements that indicates
in any way that any proprietary information for a new TLD should be
excluded from public review nor could any of our legal staff.  Hence Vint
there seems to be some concern here that transparency is being considered
to be purposefully missing in such new TLD requests/proposals.

Carl Malamud wrote:

> > I agree - the point is that if the material is marked proprietary by supplier, staff will need to edit that part out before posting to the public.
> >
> > vint
> >
>
> Hi Vint -
>
> ok, I'm totally confused.  I went back and re-read all the reporting requirements in the tld
> agreements and still can't think of a single example of what such proprietary data might be
> in the various mandated technical reports (and I tried *really* hard.  :)
>
> The only examples I could think of might be in any due diligence by staff asking the vendor to
> back up claims made in a report (e.g., staff says "show me the algorithm you used to determine
> this metric" and vendor responds "ok, but some of our proprietary code is mixed in so please
> don't release it").
>
> Can you give me a simple (hypothetical) example of something that might be proprietary or am
> I confused and looking at the wrong reporting requirements?
>
> Regards,
>
> Carl
> --
> 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: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:20:28 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: New TLD Evaluation Process : Specific Question to the Board

Stuart and all assembly members or other interested parties,

  Your response below sounds allot like a flim-flam here Stuart...

  I think the BoD should do it's own evaluation without any
suggestions from the ICANN staff as to how to proceed in doing
that evaluation so as to at least to some degree, although very minor,
a more objective evaluation from the BoD can be done.  In any event
the Stakeholders/users evaluation is all that really matters.

M. Stuart Lynn wrote:

> There is confusion in the question and some of the subsequent responses.
>
> The appendices to which you refer have relevance to the evaluation
> itself not to the NTEPPTF report. The latter is not an evaluation,
> but contains recommendations to the board on how to proceed with an
> evaluation. The task force did not require access to these appendices
> or any other similar information in order to frame its
> recommendations.
>
> Stuart
>
> At 3:25 PM +0100 9/1/02, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >
> >
> >Why hasn't the NTEPPTF had access to the "Proof of Concept
> >Evaluation reports" which had to be submitted by Afilias, in
> >accordance with Appendix U of the .info Agreement with ICANN?
> >
> >This task force was specifically set up by the Board to Evaluate the
> >New TLDs. How can it have done so without access to the vital data?
> >
> >Has this data been fully submitted by Afilias?
> >
> >Where is it?
> >
> >Why hasn't it been provided, even to the Task Force set up to
> >evaluate it? I have had it confirmed to me by members of this Task
> >Force that these documents have not been provided to them.
> >
> >Will Stuart Lynn now please confirm that all the documents have been
> >properly submitted, and will the NTEPPTF please now reconvene and
> >submit a revised report based on this data?
> >
> >And will the ICANN Board please make this data available for others
> >too, as specifically allowed under the terms of Appendix U?
> >
> >What is the point of a "proof of concept" or an evaluation process
> >if you withhold the vital data from the Registries involved?
> >
> >It makes it seem like the Board wants to "go through the motions"
> >without having to address all the details.
> >
> >Richard Henderson
> >
>
> --
> 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: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 04:36:34 +0200
From: "J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] erc paperwork

- --=======1E6C2C3B=======
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4C7366A6; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

interesting to see that the mission of ICANN takes three lines, plus two 
saying that ICANN must prevent itself from interfering (with a network 
systems which "works" without it). All the rest has strictly nothing to do 
with that network system ...

a part from producing pages and pages ... what does ICANN wants to be paid 
for?
Can sommeone help in writing a small table.

fixed costs
Product - customer - cost - billed
total
profit/loss?

jfc

- --=======1E6C2C3B=======--

- --
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: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 13:45:42 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FYI: Dot-EU Call for expressions of interest

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/dat/2002/c_208/c_20820020903en00060022.pdf
(From the Official Journal of the European Communities EN C 208/6)

Call for Expressions of Interest for the Selection of the .eu TLD Registry

  (...) The purpose of this call for expressions of interest is to 
  invite applications from organisations wishing to be considered as
  candidates for the Registry selection procedure. The selection
  procedure is based on an open call, and on principles of
  objectivity, non-discrimination and transparency.

  (...) [T]he European Commission is hereby inviting submissions for
  the selection of a Registry which will be entrusted with the 
  organisation, administration and management of the .eu top level 
  domain.

  (...) Applications are invited to be submitted in one step. The
  selection of the Registry shall be made as a result of this call
  for expressions of interest. No additional call is intended to
  take place for the selection of the Registry.

  (...) The Registry must be a non-profit organisation, formed in
  accordance with the law of a Member State and having its
  registered office, central administration and principal place of
  business within the Community.

  4. SELECTION CRITERIA (...)
   A. Quality of service (...)
   B. Human and technical resources (...)
   C. Financial standing (...)
   D. Consultation mechanisms (...)
   E. Representation (...)
   F. Impact on the domain name marketplace (...)
   G. Implementation mechanisms for public policy provisions (...)
   H. EEA countries and EU enlargement (...)

More information is available on the web site of the DG InfoSoc at
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/internet/eu_domain/news/index_en.htm
http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/telecoms/internet/eu_domain/index_en.htm

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

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

Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:47:11 -0400
From: "Michael D. Palage" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Whois Update

Very interesting update from ICANN on Whois accuracy.

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-03sep02.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1407
*************************