Re: [ga] Ah Here is the New TLDs Evaluation Process...
This Analysis shows again how incompetent Michael
Palage (Afilias' Director of Policy) is.
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/09/0430216&mode=thread Conclusions Afilias justified its Sunrise Period by suggesting that it would: 1 avoid abusive registrations 2 ensure the legitimate use of domain names associated with trademarks Avoidance of abusive registrations It has been authoritatively estimated that some 0.000269% of domain name registrations result from attempted cybersquatting (http://forum.icann.org/newtlds/395D801600000270.h tml). If this estimate is applied to the 52,209 Sunrise registrations, then some 13 abusive registrations would be expected to have resulted. Afilias’ Sunrise process resulted in at least 17,000 (and probably over 35,000) abusive registrations. Afilias’ claims to have produced a policy that avoids abusive registrations are clearly unsupported. The legitimate use of domain names associated with trademarks Of the 6,794 confirmed valid Sunrise registrations (at least to the extent that they are based on valid trademarks), 6,037 (89%) do not have associated websites or are merely “parked” with their chosen registrar. A further 89 point to missing content. A further 12 provide some temporary content (are ‘under construction’) and 3 are listed for sale. Of the 653 remaining, 649 are simply redirected to identical content at existing .com, .net or .org web servers. Only 4 registrations have been identified that have actually been used to create and publish new Internet content that would benefit the registrant and Internet users. This analysis has been submitted to Afilias for comment. They declined. Simon ----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@palage.com>
To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
<ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <twomey@icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 2:04
AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Ah Here is the New TLDs
Evaluation Process... > > As usual you raise some very insightful and pointed questions. Some of which > I look forward to finding out the answers myself. My first knowledge of Mr. > Bachollet's consultancy with ICANN was in ICANN's most recent quarterly > report to the DoC, see > http://www.icann.org/general/status-report-31mar03.htm. Excerpt provided > below. > > I look forward to Sebastién conducting a through and professional job so > that ICANN can move forward with the responsible growth of the name space > without further delay. > > Best regards, > > Michael D. Palage > (speaking in personal capacity) > > > EXCERPT FOR ICANN QUARTERLY REPORT TO DOC > > k. New TLD Evaluation and Criteria > > i. gTLD Evaluation > > The process to evaluate the effects of the first round of new gTLDs (i.e. > the seven new TLDs selected in November 2000) already in operation, which is > undertaken in order to guide the future calls for the creation of new gTLDs, > is well underway. The Final Report of ICANN's New TLD Evaluation Process > Planning Task Force was accepted by the ICANN Board in August 2002, and an > evaluation based on the criteria and procedures recommended in that final > report was commenced during the first quarter of 2003. > > In order to further focus and accelerate these studies, ICANN has retained > the services of Mr. Sebastién Bachollet through FINAKI. Mr. Bachollet, who > has significant experience relevant to the task, will coordinate the conduct > of this study. Mr. Bachollet will be working internationally on this > project; on the basis of his qualifications and motivation, it can be > expected that he will immediately establish a work program and follow up on > it thoroughly. (See MOU task C8.) > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Richard > > Henderson > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 6:11 PM > > To: ga@dnso.org > > Cc: twomey@icann.org > > Subject: [ga] Ah Here is the New TLDs Evaluation Process... > > > > > > Stuffed away on the Business Constituency newsletter, I find this > > reference: > > > > http://www.bizconst.org/newsletter_June03.htm > > > > "BC member Sebastien Bachollet has accepted a 6 month contract > > with ICANN to > > oversee the evolution of the "proof of concept" round of gTLDs. Evaluation > > is currently underway and we look forward to Sebastien's report." > > > > I find it very strange that ICANN has not published an announcement about > > this contract on its own website. > > > > My concern is that the scope and detail of the Evaluation Process proposed > > by the NTEPPTaskForce seems to have been watered down to a 6 month > > investigation by one member of the original Task Force team. > > > > What was desperately needed, after the difficulties of the previous TLDs, > > was a detailed and objective investigation which pulled no punches. > > > > Therefore I'm left wondering: > > > > 1. Was this contract put out to tender, or did ICANN just appoint > > a friendly > > insider without really telling anyone? > > > > 2. Should this key post have been publicly advertised? > > > > 3. Who, specifically, appointed Sebastien? > > > > 4. What about the contractual data from the registries (Appendix U etc) > > which hasn't even appeared yet? > > > > 5. How detailed will Sebastien's investigation be? (For example > > will it draw > > on the mass of data and evidence which has accumulated on the ICANN NewTLD > > Forums and the ICANNWatch website, concerning abuse of process > > and registrar > > fraud, Sunrise and Landrush problems etc.) > > > > 6. Will Sebastien call witnesses and allow public input, as part of his > > Process? > > > > 7. At the moment we know about Sebastien's new role from a mention on a > > backwater website. How open is this process going to be, and is > > ICANN going > > to make his investigation transparent and interactive? Just as > > the Registry > > data should be in the public domain, so too the step by step deliberations > > of the various issues should also be accessible to the public, to > > encourage > > full participation. > > > > I am concerned that all we might get is an "in-house" process which lacks > > sufficient detail and objectivity. > > > > Hard questions need to be asked and these have been evaded. > > > > It is usually not ICANN but independent participants who ask the > > honest and > > awkward questions. What guarantee do we have that this "in-house" process > > will encourage a truly objective Evaluation, which remains independent of > > ICANN interference? > > > > Will the selection of the further sTLDs be able to go ahead, if the > > Evaluation Process is as far behind as it appears to be? Will > > Sebastien's 6 > > months overseeing an Evaluation be sufficient to develop fair criteria, so > > that the selection of the next registries is not arbitrary ICANN > > preference, > > but founded on the detailed lessons learned from the previous problems? > > > > What have we learned about Sunrise, about Landrush, about abuse > > of process, > > about implementation and enforcement of agreements, about registrars who > > game the system to warehouse names for themselves, about proposed > > marketing > > budgets which evaporate into thin air? > > > > The NTEPPTF developed a huge and detailed list of areas deserving > > investigation. > > > > What I think we're likely to get is a Lite-version, which pays mere lip > > service to the "Proof of Concept", because it will suit ICANN to exhume as > > few skeletons as possible. > > > > What will be best for ICANN is a cheap, quick, lite-weight, in-house > > Process, which gives the appearance of an investigation, but is got out of > > the way as quickly (6 months?) as possible, and as quietly as possible... > > > > ...as quietly, as Sebastien was appointed... > > > > ...ssssshhhhh! > > > > > > yrs, > > > > Richard Henderson > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > -- > 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 > |