Dot net - conflict GNSO report and evaluator methodology - proposed Council resolution
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
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
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 Amsterdam Consultation on the ICANN StratPlan. 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 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
For anyone who is interested, I sent a comment in my personal capacity to the .NET comment forum: http://forum.icann.org/lists/net-rfp-general/msg00048.html -- Bret
participants (4)
-
Bret Fausett -
Marc Schneiders -
Marilyn Cade -
Philip Sheppard