>From: Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org> >To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be> >CC: "Council (list)" <council@gnso.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [council] Dot net - conflict GNSO report and evaluator methodology - proposed Council resolution >Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 03:51:33 +0200 (CEST) > >I support this request. > >Marc Schneiders >NCUC council rep > >On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, at 10:59 [=GMT+0200], Philip Sheppard wrote: > > > > > Council, > > I am concerned that there is a serious flaw in the methodology of the > > Telcordia report. > > > > Background > > The evaluation ranks Verisign as number one, just above Sentan but "with a > > numerical edge that is not statistically significant." > > The ICANN web site informs: "ICANN will promptly enter negotiations with the > > top-ranked applicant to reach a mutually acceptable registry agreement". > > > > The essence of the GNSO dot net report was: > > 1. All applicants must meet "absolute criteria of stability, security, > > technical and financial competence". > > The Evaluators report states: "All vendors met the absolute criteria and > > have been evaluated solely on the basis of the relative criteria." > > So far so good. > > > > In the GNSO report we stated that the number one relative criteria was: > > 1. Relative Criteria related to promotion of competition > > Maximization of choice for DNS users. Once an applicant has qualified by > > meeting baseline stability, technical and financial criteria, preference > > should be given to > > proposals that are evaluated to further the following goals within the ICANN > > mission: > > "Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote > > and sustain a competitive environment" > > And, > > "Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names > > where practicable and beneficial in the public interest". > > And we then provided additional guidance: > > Pricing and costs Price is here defined as the registry price (currently > > $6.00). Once an applicant has qualified by meeting the absolute criteria, > > preference should be > > given to proposals offering lower overall costs to the registrar including > > the registry price.. > > - Preference should be given to migration and operational strategies that > > minimise costs. > > - Innovation and value. It is possible that applications will offer > > innovation or new services and hence effect the value proposition. An > > assessment based on price > > should be balanced with the value proposition offered. > > Any proposed innovation or new services: > > -should be described, > > -together with an assessment of the value of them to the effected > > stakeholders (typically registrants or registrars), > > -and applicants must demonstrate their capability to offer such services > > based on their prior experience in this area. > > > > Yet the evaluators report weighted this top relative criteria as "medium" > > and under the category of "additional relative criteria". In this category > > (2.7) it scores all vendors equally. > > The evaluators report used a scoring system which was biased towards > > multiple technical criteria even though the central message of the GNSO > > report was that competition was the most important factor once > > technical/financial/security criteria were of a satisfactory standard. > > > > Conclusion > > The methodology of the evaluator's report directly contradicts the essence > > of the GNSO report. > > > > Proposed resolution for the GNSO Council meeting in Mar del Plata > > "Given that there is a fundamental contradiction between the dot net > > evaluator's methodology and the GNSO dot net report, and that this > > contradiction has a significant commercial impact, the GNSO Council calls on > > the ICANN Board to delay any negotiation with any vendor until a comparison > > of the evaluator's report with the GNSO report can be made in particular > > with respect to the ICANN core value of promoting competition". > > > > Philip Sheppard > > GNSO Council > > > > > > > > > > >