ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga] Task Force recommended ICANN should release Appendix U documents


Title: Help
The NTEPPTF made the following recommendation to the ICANN Board:
  • Data available as a result of Appendix U (for unsponsored gTLDs)
  • (two other categories listed...)

To the extent that data obtained from the first of these sources is not confidential, every effort should be made to publish it to encourage other studies to occur.

http://www.icann.org/committees/ntepptf/final-report-31jul02.htm#9

(Section 9 - Evaluation Methodology)

Appendix U specifically defined what data was to be available for publication (the vast majority of it).

 

So if ICANN's own task force has said that "every effort should be made to publish" the Afilias documents, why hasn't the Board published these documents? Is the Board in possession of these documents?

The Task Force wanted ICANN to "encourage other studies to occur" and linked this to access to the mandatory documents from Afilias stipulated in Appendix U of their Registry agreement.

If the ICANN community in its various constituencies is to continue to play an INFORMED role in the vital New TLD Evaluation process, then the Board must not withhold this key data.

I find it astonishing that the Board refuses to make any comment to repeated requests for information about this data, and access to it.

I'd also like to say that as the NTEPPTF was used to plan "how" to evaluate, rather than to "do" the evaluation, it really doesn't seem that the Board has generated any momentum or participation at all over an issue that people are extremely concerned about  - the issue of further New TLDs.

I can accept that process should be conscientious and thorough : what I cannot accept is that ICANN should inhibit participation and information by withholding data and documents which it must - unless it has been negligent - have by now in its possession.

That the Board refuses even to respond on this matter is, frankly, reprehensible.

Richard Henderson

 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>