Re: [council] Dot net - conflict GNSO report and evaluator methodology - proposed Council resolution

[Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support this request.

Marc Schneiders
NCUC council rep

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, at 10:59 [=GMT+0200], Philip Sheppard wrote:

>
> Council,
> I am concerned that there is a serious flaw in the methodology of the
> Telcordia report.
>
> Background
> The evaluation ranks Verisign as number one, just above Sentan but "with a
> numerical edge that is not statistically significant."
> The ICANN web site informs: "ICANN will promptly enter negotiations with the
> top-ranked applicant to reach a mutually acceptable registry agreement".
>
> The essence of the GNSO dot net report was:
> 1. All applicants must meet "absolute criteria of stability, security,
> technical and financial competence".
> The Evaluators report states: "All vendors met the absolute criteria and
> have been evaluated solely on the basis of the relative criteria."
> So far so good.
>
> In the GNSO report we stated that the number one relative criteria was:
> 1. Relative Criteria related to promotion of competition
> Maximization of choice for DNS users. Once an applicant has qualified by
> meeting baseline stability, technical and financial criteria, preference
> should be given to
> proposals that are evaluated to further the following goals within the ICANN
> mission:
> "Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote
> and sustain a competitive environment"
> And,
> "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names
> where practicable and beneficial in the public interest".
> And we then provided additional guidance:
> Pricing and costs Price is here defined as the registry price (currently
> $6.00). Once an applicant has qualified by meeting the absolute criteria,
> preference should be
> given to proposals offering lower overall costs to the registrar including
> the registry price..
> - Preference should be given to migration and operational strategies that
> minimise costs.
> - Innovation and value. It is possible that applications will offer
> innovation or new services and hence effect the value proposition. An
> assessment based on price
> should be balanced with the value proposition offered.
> Any proposed innovation or new services:
> -should be described,
> -together with an assessment of the value of them to the effected
> stakeholders (typically registrants or registrars),
> -and applicants must demonstrate their capability to offer such services
> based on their prior experience in this area.
>
> Yet the evaluators report weighted this top relative criteria as "medium"
> and under the category of "additional relative criteria". In this category
> (2.7) it scores all vendors equally.
> The evaluators report used a scoring system which was biased towards
> multiple technical criteria even though the central message of the GNSO
> report was that competition was the most important factor once
> technical/financial/security criteria were of a satisfactory standard.
>
> Conclusion
> The methodology of the evaluator's report directly contradicts the essence
> of the GNSO report.
>
> Proposed resolution for the GNSO Council meeting in Mar del Plata
> "Given that there is a fundamental contradiction between the dot net
> evaluator's methodology and the GNSO dot net report, and that this
> contradiction has a significant commercial impact, the GNSO Council calls on
> the ICANN Board to delay any negotiation with any vendor until a comparison
> of the evaluator's report with the GNSO report can be made in particular
> with respect to the ICANN core value of promoting competition".
>
> Philip Sheppard
> GNSO Council
>
>
>
>
>