Re: [ga] VeriSign + ICANN: be afraid, competitive procurement might be coming

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George and all,

  ICANN has simply wasted huge sums of $$ with little or no
reasonable justification, and misallocated a significant amount
on various initiatives to promote a ideology that was, and still
is not shared broadly amongst stakeholders.  Huge amounts
spent of meeting venues that largely could have been held
remotely also demonstrates a lack of fiscal responsibility.

  As far as the Obama administrations formulating policy on
fiscal government spending vis a vi Contracts, I fully agree with
the President in the article you referenced below declares:
"Obama also declared a preference should be given to fixed-price
contracts, not more flexible ones in which contractors are reimbursed
for charged costs."



George Kirikos wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> In light of the NTIA/DOJ letter strongly suggesting how competitive 
> procurement should take place, to lower costs for consumers, I am encouraged 
> by today's directive by the US government regarding contracting procedures:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_waste
>
> "Those new rules, officials said, would make it more difficult for 
> contractors to bilk taxpayers and make some half-trillion dollars in federal 
> contracts each year more accessible to independent contractors."
>
> "Obama will say that his administration will stop outsourcing to private 
> contractors many services that should be performed by government employees. 
> He also pledged to open contracts to small businesses and eliminate 
> "unnecessary" no-bid contracts that allow preferred contractors to take 
> assignments even though they might not be the least expensive option."
>
> Obviously, the services provided by both VeriSign and ICANN can be performed 
> much less expensively by either in-house government employees or by 
> competitive tenders. Just like Neustar won the .us contract, VeriSign should 
> have to compete to provide .com/net registry services, as should PIR (who 
> have raised prices substantially) for .org.
>
> It's clear that for any new gTLDs that the community agrees should be added 
> to the root, that there should be a tender process to see who would perform 
> that at the lowest cost. This is the exact opposite of how ICANN wishes to 
> manage things, auctioning off the new TLDs to the highest bidder to maximize 
> its own benefit (at the expense of consumers). ICANN has demonstrated they 
> are not the "least expensive option", as not only is their budget out of 
> control:
>
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables/
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090203_icann_blows_46_million_stock_market/
>
> but they actively propose to raise business and consumers costs through 
> ill-conceived programs like the new gTLDs boondoggle.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.leap.com/

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln
"YES WE CAN!"  Barack ( Berry ) Obama

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827