<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Dot net - conflict GNSO report and evaluator methodology - proposed Council resolution
- To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [council] Dot net - conflict GNSO report and evaluator methodology - proposed Council resolution
- From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 20:41:21 -0500
- In-reply-to: <20050401035103.C3258-100000@voo.doo.net>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<html><div style='background-color:'><P class=RTE><BR><BR></P>
<DIV class=RTE>I have given this a lot of thought. </DIV>
<DIV class=RTE> </DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>I recommend that Philip and any other councilors with views on this
post their comments to the public comment list which is presently open.</DIV>
<DIV class=RTE> </DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>I believe that is the most appropriate place to provide these
comments. </DIV>
<DIV class=RTE> </DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV class=RTE> </DIV>
<DIV class=RTE>Marilyn Cade</DIV>
<DIV class=RTE> </DIV>
<DIV class=RTE> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>>To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>>CC: "Council (list)" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [council] Dot net - conflict GNSO report and
evaluator methodology - proposed Council resolution
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 03:51:33 +0200 (CEST)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>I support this request.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>Marc Schneiders
<DIV></DIV>>NCUC council rep
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, at 10:59 [=GMT+0200], Philip Sheppard wrote:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Council,
<DIV></DIV>> > I am concerned that there is a serious flaw in the
methodology of the
<DIV></DIV>> > Telcordia report.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Background
<DIV></DIV>> > The evaluation ranks Verisign as number one, just above Sentan
but "with a
<DIV></DIV>> > numerical edge that is not statistically significant."
<DIV></DIV>> > The ICANN web site informs: "ICANN will promptly enter
negotiations with the
<DIV></DIV>> > top-ranked applicant to reach a mutually acceptable registry
agreement".
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > The essence of the GNSO dot net report was:
<DIV></DIV>> > 1. All applicants must meet "absolute criteria of
stability, security,
<DIV></DIV>> > technical and financial competence".
<DIV></DIV>> > The Evaluators report states: "All vendors met the
absolute criteria and
<DIV></DIV>> > have been evaluated solely on the basis of the relative
criteria."
<DIV></DIV>> > So far so good.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > In the GNSO report we stated that the number one relative
criteria was:
<DIV></DIV>> > 1. Relative Criteria related to promotion of competition
<DIV></DIV>> > Maximization of choice for DNS users. Once an applicant
has qualified by
<DIV></DIV>> > meeting baseline stability, technical and financial
criteria, preference
<DIV></DIV>> > should be given to
<DIV></DIV>> > proposals that are evaluated to further the following
goals within the ICANN
<DIV></DIV>> > mission:
<DIV></DIV>> > "Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market
mechanisms to promote
<DIV></DIV>> > and sustain a competitive environment"
<DIV></DIV>> > And,
<DIV></DIV>> > "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration
of domain names
<DIV></DIV>> > where practicable and beneficial in the public interest".
<DIV></DIV>> > And we then provided additional guidance:
<DIV></DIV>> > Pricing and costs Price is here defined as the registry
price (currently
<DIV></DIV>> > $6.00). Once an applicant has qualified by meeting the
absolute criteria,
<DIV></DIV>> > preference should be
<DIV></DIV>> > given to proposals offering lower overall costs to the
registrar including
<DIV></DIV>> > the registry price..
<DIV></DIV>> > - Preference should be given to migration and operational
strategies that
<DIV></DIV>> > minimise costs.
<DIV></DIV>> > - Innovation and value. It is possible that applications
will offer
<DIV></DIV>> > innovation or new services and hence effect the value
proposition. An
<DIV></DIV>> > assessment based on price
<DIV></DIV>> > should be balanced with the value proposition offered.
<DIV></DIV>> > Any proposed innovation or new services:
<DIV></DIV>> > -should be described,
<DIV></DIV>> > -together with an assessment of the value of them to the
effected
<DIV></DIV>> > stakeholders (typically registrants or registrars),
<DIV></DIV>> > -and applicants must demonstrate their capability to offer
such services
<DIV></DIV>> > based on their prior experience in this area.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Yet the evaluators report weighted this top relative criteria as
"medium"
<DIV></DIV>> > and under the category of "additional relative criteria".
In this category
<DIV></DIV>> > (2.7) it scores all vendors equally.
<DIV></DIV>> > The evaluators report used a scoring system which was
biased towards
<DIV></DIV>> > multiple technical criteria even though the central
message of the GNSO
<DIV></DIV>> > report was that competition was the most important factor
once
<DIV></DIV>> > technical/financial/security criteria were of a
satisfactory standard.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Conclusion
<DIV></DIV>> > The methodology of the evaluator's report directly
contradicts the essence
<DIV></DIV>> > of the GNSO report.
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Proposed resolution for the GNSO Council meeting in Mar
del Plata
<DIV></DIV>> > "Given that there is a fundamental contradiction between
the dot net
<DIV></DIV>> > evaluator's methodology and the GNSO dot net report, and
that this
<DIV></DIV>> > contradiction has a significant commercial impact, the
GNSO Council calls on
<DIV></DIV>> > the ICANN Board to delay any negotiation with any vendor
until a comparison
<DIV></DIV>> > of the evaluator's report with the GNSO report can be made
in particular
<DIV></DIV>> > with respect to the ICANN core value of promoting
competition".
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> > Philip Sheppard
<DIV></DIV>> > GNSO Council
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>> >
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV></div></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|