[council] priorities for Council related to StratPlan

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I wanted to post to the Council regarding my personal views as a councilor
related to the priority and importance of the StratPlan - both what it
proposes for the short term, the mid term, and the long term, and the
opportunity for all of us to participate in the three consultation sessions
scheduled for this meeting. This opportunity for consultation was
requested/recommended in the Amsterdam Consultation on the ICANN StratPlan. 

 

Perhaps we can discuss informally in our afternoon session more about the
consultation.

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 8:41 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [council] Dot net - conflict GNSO report and evaluator
methodology - proposed Council resolution

 

 

I have given this a lot of thought. 

 

I recommend that Philip and any other councilors with views on this post
their comments to the public comment list which is presently open.

 

I believe that is the most appropriate place to provide these comments. 

 

Regards,

 

Marilyn Cade

 

 

>From: Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

>To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx> 

>CC: "Council (list)" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

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

>Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 03:51:33 +0200 (CEST) 

> 

>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 

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > 

> > 

>