[ga] RE: Monthly Reports

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Patrick,

Just a quick followup, there's a certain delicious irony that according to your 
bio:

http://www.icann.org/en/biog/jones.htm
http://www.webcitation.org/5g2ZocLPw

you "assisted with e-commerce issues, domain name protection and intellectual 
property enforcement for a variety of clients, including the International 
Olympic Committee" in your prior life before ICANN. Now, the IOC is threatening 
to sue ICANN if the new gTLD plan goes ahead:

http://domainnamewire.com/2009/04/09/olympics-to-icann-well-sue-you/

If ICANN is not going to listen to me, and not going to listen to the 
DOJ/DOC/NTIA, they might want to listen to the IOC, especially if you ever hope 
to go back to having them as a client one day post-ICANN. 

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.leap.com/

--- On Tue, 4/14/09, George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: Monthly Reports
> To: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 7:55 PM
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> You're correct that the total need not be summed up.
> However, the entire column for domains at each registry was
> missing, as were other columns. If you read page 6 of the
> dot-cat PDF for December 2008, which duplicates the Appendix
> 4 fields, there are 35 required fields. However, there were
> only columns A through W submitted on the spreadsheet table
> (which is 23 fields). Thus 12 fields (columns) were entirely
> missing. It's not just the totals (in a row) that were
> missing (which were optional). Appendix 4 does state:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/cat/cat-appendix4-22mar06.htm
> 
> "This report shall be transmitted to ICANN
> electronically in comma or pipe separated-value format,
> using the following fields per registrar:"
> 
> so it's relatively easy to count up to 35, to see that
> all fields are present. For ICANN staff earning above market
> salaries:
> 
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090105_icann_for_profit_companies_comparables/
> 
> I would think that knowing there's a difference between
> 23 and 35 would be something "above average"
> employees would be qualified to know. If they don't know
> that difference, I'd suggest the CFO cut people's
> paycheques by 12/35ths, to see if they notice a difference.
> 
> Most ICANN staff members typically ignore questions to them
> (save for those coming from registry operators who pay for
> fancy parties at ICANN meetings), unless the issue is
> published on the lists to "prod them" into action.
> If there is an official email address that is public and
> archived, feel free to post it, and that might encourage
> people to submit it to staff who will then be responsive
> (because their lack of an answer can be monitored by all).
> You'll note for example the Mexico Question Box answers
> didn't appear until I posted about it on the GA list:
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg02775.html
> 
> and even then, answers were evasive, e.g. ICANN denied
> receiving any notice they were researching my views on
> Obama!
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg02826.html
> 
> ICANN knows the timestamp and IP address of the individual,
> so they certainly know exactly who was responsible.
> 
> I don't feel so bad that my concerns are ignored, given
> ICANN has also ignored the NTIA/DOJ/DOC in their new gTLD
> comments. Unlike them, I have no power whatsoever over
> ICANN. It would be better if ICANN continued to ignore me,
> but instead listened to the NTIA/DOJ/DOC (and the concerns
> of the vast majority of the public who oppose new gTLDs), if
> ICANN truly cares about its long-term survival. But, if they
> plan to listen to everyone, that's fine too. I guess
> we'll see for sure whether ICANN turns the corner and
> becomes responsive to the community if the new gTLD plan is
> simply shelved or put on the backburner for further study.
> Time will tell.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> George Kirikos
> http://www.leap.com/
> 
> --- On Tue, 4/14/09, Patrick Jones
> <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: RE: Monthly Reports
> > To: "gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx"
> <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009, 7:14 PM
> > George,
> > 
> > I saw your post on the GA list about the Monthly
> Reports.
> > Not all of the registries include a total of monthly
> domains
> > on their monthly reports. I can assure you there is no
> > conspiracy at work - this discrepancy is being
> corrected and
> > will be posted tomorrow. Field #3 in the appendix
> requires
> > the registry to submit the total number of domains
> under
> > management by each registrar, but there is not a
> requirement
> > that each registry provide a total at the bottom of
> column
> > #3 adding up the number (it would be great if all
> provided
> > this when submitted). The line item is added manually
> in the
> > monthly reports.
> > 
> > Hopefully future automation will provide better
> reporting
> > and tools for the community.
> > 
> > Feel free to pass this response on to the GA list. If
> you
> > have questions in the future, feel free to direct them
> to
> > staff.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Patrick
> > 
> > --
> > Patrick L. Jones
> > Registry Liaison Manager &
> > Support to ICANN Nominating Committee
> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
> > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> > Tel: +1 310 301 3861
> > patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx
> > patrickjones.tel