I
wanted to post to the Council regarding my personal views as a councilor
related to the priority and importance of the StratPlan – both what it
proposes for the short term, the mid term, and the long term, and the
opportunity for all of us to participate in the three consultation sessions
scheduled for this meeting. This opportunity for consultation was
requested/recommended in the
Perhaps
we can discuss informally in our afternoon session more about the consultation.
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005
8:41 PM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: [council] Dot net -
conflict GNSO report and evaluator methodology - proposed Council resolution
I have given this a lot of thought.
I recommend that Philip and any other councilors with views on this
post their comments to the public comment list which is presently open.
I believe that is the most appropriate place to provide these comments.
Regards,
Marilyn Cade
>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
> > "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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>