DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[ga] FYI: .org applicant comments (long)

Sorry for the length (please don't quote this message in full when
replying on the GA list!) /// Alexander  

.org Reassignment: Applicant Comments on Preliminary Evaluation 
Report on .org Proposals
(Received through 29 August 2002)

Some picks from the actual comments:

 "The technical part of the proposal was written by engineers for engineers."
 "We also note a strong unbalance with regard to the evaluation team-members 
  origin: this evaluation process was an All-American play.
  No comment on the obvious personal interconnection between ICANN, ISOC and 
  Afilias but it would be unwise to believe that this situation contributed 
  positively to a neutral evaluation process."
 "[Does not communicate understanding of major TLD transition]
  This is a weak point in our proposal and we regard the critic as valid. 
  The transition plan should have provided more detailed information and there 
  were no milestones for ICANN to evaluate the process in our proposal."
 "We consider the NCDNHC evaluation process as more neutral and more objective 
  than the technical process but it also was dominated by US interests 
  although the member list looks like it had more diversity."
 "ICANN itselfev aluated the bidder’s qualification for the endowment. In our 
  case ICANN relies on an assumption and a speculation. We consider both as 
 "In our view the ORG evaluation process could have been a showcase for ICANN 
  to demonstrate openness, fairness and global thinking. ICANN, however, chose 
  to honor the closest bidder in an American-dominated process we consider as 
  highly nontransparent (evaluation by academic team not communicated, 
  weighting of criteria unknown, important criteria not considered etc.). This
  ICANN managed ORG evaluation process was in our view not as fair as it could 
  have been."

 "There was no technical due diligence conducted as part of the evaluation. Past
  performance claims are not documented and no examination of code, logs, or 
  configurations was conducted."
 "The evaluation was all theory and no practice. Since the distance between 
  theory and practice is so much smaller in theory than in practice, it is no 
  surprise that the evaluations were able to boil complex problems down to simple 
 "We have thus posted an open letter at 
  <http://not.invisible.net/signals/bin/000270.shtml> and invite your comments as 
  well as those of our fellow .organisms."

 "No detail of the decision making process for the Academic CIO brief evaluation 
  was provided by ICANN. Given the disparity between the Academic and Gartner 
  evaluations, we would therefore respectfully request that the detailed report, 
  including decision making process, be provided or the evaluation disregarded."
 "Given the issues outlined in this letter, Unity Registry believes it would be 
  prudent for Gartner to perform a re-evaluation taking into account the above 

 "These concerns fall into three major categories:
  1. Setting the record straight: basic inaccuracies in the evaluations that may 
     have affected our rankings;
  2. Issues related to fundamental flaws in the process and methodologies 
     employed, which have resulted in a number of the evaluation teams falling 
     back upon highly subjective approaches also detrimental to our evaluation; and
  3. General concerns for the future democratic governance of the internet."
 "3. We regret that more attention was not given to the confidentiality of the bid 
     process and its disassociation from ICANN politics {2}. It would have been 
     preferable to have the sealed bids handled by an independent body rather than 
     give rise to situations in which ICANN is seen to be so intimately
     associated with the lead candidate."
 "Where is the instability or difficulty of transition? Were we penalized because 
  we chose the simplest and safest option for transitioning .org by changing the 
  operator first and the equipment later?"

  "In trying to understand the NCDNHC’s review, we were frankly concerned by the 
   many mistakes we and others noted in the report. We have analyzed the report 
   carefully and provide two documents which we hope will address any concerns 
   ICANN may have as a result of the NCDNHC report."
  "Our spreadsheets demonstrate what happens when one or more errors are corrected. 
   Scoring can shift to a startling degree."

  "The financial problems of both ISOC and NeuStar have been documented and need 
   to be evaluated in consideration of their ability to operate .org."
  "In particular, Gartner's publication of an analytical report on NeuStar in 
   the middle of the .org application process ("NeuStar: One of the Best 
   Kept-Secrets in Telecom," by David Fraley, 06 May 2002, available on 
   www.gartner.com) raises questions whether its more extensive knowledge of 
   NeuStar's systems may have given that bidder an unfair advantage."
  "Since the CIO Team did not provide much detail as to its methodology or 
   findings, we question the reliability of its process and the weight attributed 
   to its determination."
  "While we appreciate the voluntary efforts of the NCDNHC team, aspects of its 
   report concern us. Its methodology for measuring the level of public support 
   was flawed. Also, the report contains inconsistencies in evaluation of the 11 
   applicants and mathematical errors."

 "Should ISOC be selected, we will form a new not-for-profit company ­ the Public 
  Interest Registry (PIR) ­to run the .ORG registry. PIR’s board will be appointed 
  by ISOC, but PIR will be a separate legal entity and isolated from ISOC 
  financially and operationally. PIR (not ISOC) will enter into the registry 
  management agreement with ICANN, and PIR will contract with Afilias for all 
  back-end registry services. Our agreement with Afilias provides that Afilias will 
  cover the start-up, transition, and initial operating costs and will then be 
  repaid by PIR for these expenses over the course of the agreement."

 "The Academic CIO and the ICANN General Counsel Evaluation Reports were 
  disappointing in many respects. Our main concern is that no relevant data 
  was provided to substantiate the rankings given to each bid. This creates 
  a sense that the reports are overtly subjective and biased in their 
 "First and foremost, The .Org Foundation requests that the NCDNHC Evaluation 
  Report be completely discarded. We are truly alarmed that the NCDNHC Report 
  stated on page 20 that The .Org Foundation "did not respond to the NCDNHC 
  questions, nor to any other substantive questions on the list". This is a 
  completely false and highly prejudicial statement."
 "Regarding the Gartner report, based on the significant inaccuracies stated 
  as justification for our low ranking we hereby request that Gartner or 
  the ICANN Staff re-evaluate our proposal and publish the findings."

 "Overall, NeuStar submits that Gartner produced a credible and sound evaluation. 
  As with any complex evaluation, however, certain of Gartner’s statements are 
  incorrect or are based upon false assumptions, while others require 
  clarification by NeuStar."
 "ISOC has no registry experience." (...) "DotOrg Foundation has no registry 
  experience." (...) "Register.Org has no registry experience." (...)
  "GNR outsources its registry operations," (...)
 "The CIO Team Evaluation incorrectly concludes that the ISOC bid has a strong, 
  lowrisk organizational model."
 "Given the severely flawed nature of some of the analysis contained within 
  those reports, the recommendations contained within the Staff Report are
  premature and improper."
 "The NCDNHC Evaluation Report (the “NCDNHC Report”), in particular, cannot be
  accepted on its face, if it is considered at all."
 "Given the significant issues raised here and in NeuStar’s assessment of the 
  Evaluation Reports, it is clear that the Staff Report prematurely selects ISOC 
  as the best candidate for transition of .org. In particular, the highly 
  flawed NCDNHC analysis is an insufficient basis for the final selection of 
  the ISOC bid."

 "Organic Names is disappointed with the Draft ICANN Staff Report, both in terms 
  of its recommendation, but also (and more seriously), in regard to substantive 
  inaccuracies, misunderstandings, and inconsistencies within the process."
 "Instead, it appears that the size of an organisation, rather than its ability, 
  or /successful/ past experience, seems to be the main characteristic that 
  brings organisations to the top of the list."
 "[NCDNHC Evaluation:] Organic Names submits that this is one of the most 
  inconsistent, ill prepared, and badly argued reports its principals have 
  thus-far encountered."
 "Emails that appeared to be from the subcommittees (whose identities were not 
  known to Organic Names) were referred to ICANN to determine whether ICANN 
  wished us to answer them. In each case, the answer was ‘no’."
 "We received no questions from the NCDNHC."
 "If ICANN wish to ascertain support from others in the community it should 
  commission a market survey company with statistical experience and put relevant 
  questions to a statistically valid sample of people (...)"
 "We suggest that the NCDNHC evaluation is flawed on many levels and we urge 
  the ICANN board and staff to ignore it. We believe many other applicants hold 
  similar opinions."
 "Organic Names is concerned that none of the evaluators on the Gartner team 
  appeared to be wellknown or knowledgeable in matters of the DNS."
 "In reviewing the Gartner Group's evaluation we seriously wonder if they have 
  read our proposal."
 "It is Organic Names’ position that the draft report does not achieve the level 
  of professionalism and independence that we should expect from ICANN or any 
  body associated with the United States Department of Commerce."

 "While bidders were required to submit recent annual financial reports and 
  other financial data with their proposals, it appears that neither Gartner 
  nor the Academic CIOs examined that data or considered financial stability
  to be relevant in its review."
 "B. The Academic CIO Team Evaluation Is Highly Subjective, Provides No Analysis
  And Relies On Inappropriate Criteria. It Therefore Must Be Disregarded In The
  Staff Report."
 "RegisterOrg greatly appreciates the recognition by the Gartner Report that it
  provides a grade A technology plan."
 "Although RegisterOrg was rated extremely well by the NCDNHC on a variety of 
  criteria, the NCDNHC, in some instances, appears to have misunderstood
  RegisterOrg’s proposal and relied on some inaccurate data that we believe 
  adversely impacted the weighted ranking of the bidders."
 "Several of the bidders already manage significantly large global registries. 
  Should any of those bidders be awarded the .org registry, that applicant would 
  control registries large enough to constitute another VeriSign. To that end, 
  RegisterOrg suggests that the goal of increasing competition at the registry 
  level requires the selection of an applicant with the technical capability and
  experience to operate the .org registry whose selection will further diversify 
  registry management and promote competition."

This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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