Re: [ga] ICANN to hire economic consultants to study competition issues

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Exactly right. A consulting firm's report or a study or survey or poll will
have results based on the parameters set by those funding it. If I want to
prove cigarette smoking is not bad for you, I can pay for a study and make
sure the study supports my opinion.

The researchers always know which side their bread is buttered on. If their
results don't please the funding source, there is no more funding for future
studies. Job security is the primary function for much research. A
university would have been a better choice than a pro firm, but still the
results can be skewed.

I know this is pessimistic before the study is even completed and I can be
proven wrong with this one. Just been past experience with ICANN and with
"studies" that they can be assumed to be using this as a way to approve the
contracts with the study making them to have appeared to have performed due
diligence.

There have been several businesspeople here on this list, on the public
comments, and the web references pointed out by memebers of this list who
all already advised ICANN it would be anti-competitive. They already have
advice where they are supposed to get it from. There is a bottom-up
consensus no that indicates the contract needs to be rewritten on several
points and now ICANN's BoD has decided once again that bottom-up consensus
should be ignored since it does not agree with what they already want to do
and have decided to do.

This is status quo. If something different happens, I will be shocked and
awed.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://icann.thingsthatjustpissmeoff.com

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Kirikos" <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <biz-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>; <info-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>;
<org-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:34 AM
Subject: [ga] ICANN to hire economic consultants to study competition issues


> Hello,
>
> The adopted resolutions of today's Board meeting were just released:
>
> http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-18oct06.htm
>
> They're going to hire an outside economic consulting firm to answer
> various competition related questions. Until one sees the report, it's
> unclear whether this is good or bad. One can hire "experts" to say the
> world is flat these days....
>
> However, given that they seem to continue to plan to give presumptive
> renewal to the existing registry operators, I don't see this
> development as a positive. On the bright side, they didn't approve the
> existing proposed contracts, yet.
>
> Any economic consultant should study whether consumers would experience
> lower prices if the registry contracts were regularly re-tendered,
> compared to having presumptive renewal, and what the optimal contract
> length would (i.e. 3 years, 5 years, 8 years, etc.).
>
> Ultimately, ICANN is making this decision more difficult and complex
> than it should be. It's obvious that the maximum public benefit would
> occur if the contracts were of fixed term, and given to the lowest
> bidder for a tender with a baseline of operational
> standards/specifications. Countless government and private contracts
> are bid in this exact same manner, everything from supplying
> paperclips, to outsourcing of call centres, to plane orders. Any other
> solution is not optimal for the public, and begs the question "Why?"
>
> Using Google as our friend, one can see pages about procurement like:
>
> http://www.optimalauctions.com/solutions_procurement.jsp
> http://www.osec.doc.gov/ogc/occic/apec.html
> http://www.corwm.org.uk/content-512
> http://www.statnett.no/default.aspx?ChannelID=1209
>
> and see how many strategic rules and principles ICANN would break, in
> failing to reach an optimal solution in its procurement, should it have
> approved the proposed contracts (and process) to date. Presumptive
> renewal, where the suppliers get to set their own prices, would be
> laughed at as a proposed procurement strategy. That's simply a giveaway
> to the suppliers, and no sane and accountable organization would adopt
> -- they'd be canned on the spot by their superiors.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.5/483 - Release Date: 10/18/06
>
>