RE: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)
These are the closest we have been able to come to when it comes to such
reports or metrics:
|From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Richard
|Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 1:08 PM
|To: George Kirikos; DannyYounger@cs.com; email@example.com
|Subject: Re: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)
|ICANN introduced the New TLDs with a much-vaunted "Proof of
|to accompany them.
|The launch of the new TLDs was to be a carefully studied test by which to
|measure the viability of any future New TLDs.
|They committed themselves to a New TLD Evaluation Process. Members of the
|public have been contributing valuable information about the New TLDs for
|almost 2 years on ICANN's New TLD Public Fora (which sadly Stuart Lynn
|branded "a joke"). In reality, many of the problems associated with these
|New TLDs first broke to the public through the vigilance of the public, on
|these fora, as well as at ICANNWatch.
|Meanwhile, what has ICANN done to measure the 'proof of concept', to
|evaluate the New TLDs, and assess their viability?
|Firstly, ICANN has been asked to clarify exactly who is going to chair the
|New TLD Evaluation Process, which has yet to formally commence.
|(There was a
|committee set up to define the aims and methods of a subsequent evaluation
|process - but where is the process itself?)
|Secondly, ICANN required mandatory and publishable Evaluation Reports from
|the New TLD Registries. These were required under Appendix U of the
|ICANN-Registry Agreements. Very specific details had to be assessed and
|reported back on by the Registries, and it was made clear that these were
|predominantly for public consumption.
|I have been asking ICANN staff and Board *for over a year* why these
|Evaluation Reports have never been published. They were mostly due for
|publication 12 to 18 months ago. I first asked in Spring of 2002. There was
|no reply. I then asked again in the Summer of 2002. Stuart Lynn said that
|ICANN staff had been "too busy to upload the reports onto the ICANN
|website". I asked again in Autumn 2002, and again in January 2003
|It is now June 2003 - and ICANN staff still have not had enough time to
|upload the Registry Evaluation Reports. My 12 year old daughter could have
|done it in half an hour.
|What does this tell us about the seriousness of ICANN's commitment to the
|"Proof of Concept", the Evaluation Process, and the need to consider all
|aspects of New TLD releases, rather than just their own arbitrary criteria?
|And ICANN always goes on about wanting to involve all constituencies in
|participation and policy development. How can people engage in informed
|participation, if key data is withheld (in what I now regard as an
|The issue of New TLDs is of immense interest and concern, internationally,
|to sincere internet users all over the world.
|This California quango gives the appearance of just acting
|inadequate respect or acknowledgement of the viewpoints of the
|Where are the Evaluation Reports?
|Where is the Evaluation Process?
|Why have I waited 400 days for an acknowledgement from Dan Halloran to a
|serious and detailed mail about the new TLDs? Why does ICANN arbitrarily
|ignore parties it does not wish to face?
|This thread is entitled "Why we are being ignored".
|I have been ignored for over 400 days on the issue of the New TLDs. How is
|that for ICANN's much vaunted "Responsiveness"?
|I'm just grateful that ICANNWatch has afforded space to publish
|concerns over the release of these New TLDs, and is prepared to offer a
|voice to the worldwide constituency which ICANN treats with disdain.
|If we do not fully evaluate the difficulties, abuse of process,
|which accompanied previous New TLDs, then how can we hope to avoid a
|repetition of similar problems?
|----- Original Message -----
|From: George Kirikos <firstname.lastname@example.org>
|To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <email@example.com>
|Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 5:44 PM
|Subject: Success Metrics (was Re: [ga] why we are being ignored)
|> While they're pondering new TLDs, have they ever issued a report on the
|> "success" of the old ones that were added?
|> In particular, has ICANN ever even defined metrics for judging the
|> success/failure of new TLDS? Without specifying those criteria IN
|> ADVANCE, the whole thing is a sham. This came up in the WLS debate,
|> too, where the only "success criteria" was whether Verisign makes money
|> (for real, check Verisign's answers to public questions in the document
|> at http://www.verisign-grs.com/wls_responses.pdf ), and no study of the
|> existing landscape was ever conducted, to be able to judge the impact
|> of any changes.
|> George Kirikos
|> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
|> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
|Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
|("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html