[ncdnhc-discuss] RE: Discuss digest, Vol 1 #518 - 5 msgs
Hansen, Ken
ken.hansen at neustar.biz
Mon Oct 7 21:21:39 CEST 2002
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
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-request at netaction.or.kr
[mailto:discuss-request at netaction.or.kr]
Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 11:01 PM
To: discuss at icann-ncc.org
Subject: Discuss digest, Vol 1 #518 - 5 msgs
Send Discuss mailing list submissions to
discuss at icann-ncc.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
discuss-request at icann-ncc.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
discuss-admin at icann-ncc.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant
Comments | 1 October 2002 (fwd) (Milton Mueller)
2. Re: ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant
Comments | 1 October 2002 (fwd) (Dave Crocker)
3. Re: ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant Comments | 1 October 2002
(fwd) (t byfield)
--__--__--
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 16:56:28 -0400
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>, <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant
Comments | 1 October 2002 (fwd)
Alejandro:
Thanks for the heads up. When you say this:
>>there is some strong wording about the NCDNHC in this assessment
You mean the Neustar assessment.
That is the _only_ applicant comment that has a particular animosity
for the NCDNHC's contribution to the evaluation. I will explain the
underlying reason for that below.
But first, you need to know that we dealt with Neustar's comments at
length in our Supplemental Report, which you can read here:
http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/ncdnhc-supplemental-report-12sep02.pdf
That report (specifically, pp 7-9) went through Neustar's original
objections
point by point and showed just how unfounded (and even dishonest, in
certain cases) they were. I note that in its second reply comments
Neustar does not bother to acknowledge our Supplemental Report. They
simply repeat discredited arguments or shift rhetorical grounds a bit.
As an example, in its first-round comments Neustar tried to claim as
endorsers of its proposal four organizations that had simply been
asked to respond to a survey. We pointed out that these
organizations had NOT endorsed their proposal in our Supplemental
Report. Neustar was rather silent on that issue this time around.
(Neustar's first round comments, a 50-page rhetorical barrage, is
chock-
full of this kind of camouflage. We had to go through it sentence by
sentence to separate fact from fiction. It wasn't fun.)
Neustar has now been reduced to two arguments. One is that we
were biased in favor of noncommercial entities. That argument just
doesn't work. Our top choice, Unity Registry, was a for-profit, and
of our top 4 recommended choices, 2 were noncommercial and two
were commercial. No amount of spin can present such results as
reflecting a bias toward noncommercial entities.
The other argument is that NCDNHC suffers from a conflict of
interest because it gave applicants points for helping noncommercial
participation in ICANN. I think we handled this issue correctly. We
recognized that direct assistance to NCDNHC is but one of many
possible ways of assisting noncommercial participation in ICANN.
We did not show any particular bias toward those who selected to
do this via the NCDNHC. But we did recognize those who did
propose to work with NCDNHC as a legitimate way of being
responsive to and supportive of noncommercial participation.
One could claim conflict of interest if we had insisted on
recognizing direct contributions to the NCDNHC as the ONLY
form of supporting noncommercial interests in ICANN. But we
did not.
Note that our top applicant, Unity, does not provide any direct
assistance to NCDNHC, but it does other suitable things. Of the top 4,
ISOC/PIR/Afilias and GNR proposed direct forms of working
with NCDNHC; Unity and IMS/ISC did not. Also note that applicants
who did propose direct methods of assisting NCDNHC, such as
UIA, did not get top rankings.
Alejandro, this is one area where I hope the ICANN Board will
show some real integrity and make it clear that an applicant's
ability to make lots of noise - and lots of implied threats - will
not affect its decisionmaking. ICANN staff has already shown
a major bias toward Neustar by casting them as the second-
ranked proposal, when in fact the combination of the technical and
usage-oriented reports should make ISOC, Unity and GNR
the top-ranked applicants. Nothing in the results significantly
differentiates Neustar from RegisterOrg, yet the staff report
reduces the status of RegisterOrg, unfairly I think, to below
Neustar's.
I think the source of the problem here is that Neustar
strongly EXPECTED to be the winner, and their low rankings
in the NCDNHC report came as a shock to them. I guess they
think that their only option at this point is to create an ugly scene
so that Board members, who may already perceive NCDNHC
negatively because of its housing dissent, will further split
ICANN and disregard the duly authorized evaluation team.
But think about the implications of that.
Neustar's apparent willingness to hurl mud and exploit any
available rhetorical devices to discredit our report does not
make them a very promising candidate to operate .org. It's
not that we can't take criticism, it's the fact that the criticism
is not legitimate and is deliberately manipulative and destructive
that bothers me. How can an applicant of such low integrity be
entrusted with a resource so valuable to the noncommercial
community?
--MM
--__--__--
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 14:21:40 -0700
To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant
Comments | 1 October 2002 (fwd)
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>, <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
At 04:56 PM 10/5/2002 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>That is the _only_ applicant comment that has a particular animosity
>for the NCDNHC's contribution to the evaluation. I will explain the
Once again, folks,
When was that contribution reviewed and approved by this
constituency, or when was the authority to produce work in the name of this
constituency -- without constituency review and approval -- delegated to
the authors of that contribution?
The same question applies to the supplemental document. (Language
in the supplement, like "we eventually reached a unanimous consensus" is
wonderfully misleading.)
In other words, what makes those contributions anything other than
the independent work of a small team of individuals?
As before, a citation to the public record of formal constituency
decision-making on these matters would be sufficient.
d/
----------
Dave Crocker <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.850.1850
--__--__--
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:02:37 -0400
From: t byfield <tbyfield at panix.com>
To: discuss at icann-ncc.org
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN | .org Reassignment: Applicant Comments
| 1 October 2002 (fwd)
dhc2 at dcrocker.net (Sat 10/05/02 at 02:21 PM -0700):
> >That is the _only_ applicant comment that has a particular animosity
> >for the NCDNHC's contribution to the evaluation. I will explain the
>
> Once again, folks,
once again, dave:
i support the assessment. do you not support it? if not, why not?
and why did you wait until now to register your objections?
i asked you that on 3 oct, and you didn't answer.
the NCC report was issued on 9 september; if you're objecting on pro-
cedural grounds, why didn't you do so when it was in process or immeð
diately after it was issued?
cheers,
t
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
End of Discuss Digest
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list