I just have one comment (problem) about Neustar's application:PROBLEM: They
were asked a question prior to Nov 5th by the ICANN staff with respect to who they
were going to associate themselves with (to beef up there DNS registry experience)...Here
is the question and the response:
>>>Accordingly, ICANN requests your Reponses
to the following questions:
1. Neustar and Melbourne IT are associated with a
number of applications for new TLDs as part of a joint venture named JVTeam. The
application for the new TLD .web, however, is submitted solely by Neustar. Please
identify the entity that will operate the registry, and if the entity is not Neustar,
provide all information regarding this arrangement as required by Sections D13.2.10
and D15.3 of the Registry Operator's Proposal<<<<
>>NeuStar's Response (prior to
Nov 5th):
1. The .web proposal has been submitted solely by NeuStar. During the
proposal development process Melbourne IT was associated with another applicant which
has submitted an alternate bid. Given this association, Melbourne IT elected not
to jointly submit the .web proposal.
"NeuStar is fully capable and unconstrained
from operating the registry and in delivering all that is included in the .web proposal.
It is NeuStar's preference however, if awarded .web, to implement and operate the
domain with full support from JVTeam. The .web proposal reflects this preferred approach,
which would be accomplished by assignment of the contract to JVTeam after the award.<<<<
Now
we find out on November 8, Neustar has again written ICANN and explained they will
not be associated with JVTeam at ALL....as there could potentially be some non-compete
issues (see ICANN's staff comments below with regards to receiving this letter):
(Statement
from ICANN about this letter from Neustar)
>>>By correspondence on November 8,
2000, Neustar informed ICANN it would not subcontract its registry operations to
JVTeam. Neustar’s decision not to subcontract to JVTeam arises from potential non-compete
issues between Melbourne IT (joint partner in JVTeam) and Afilias<<<<
Ladies and
Gentlemen and those seeking logic here....What kind of application is this, that
received GLOWING comments from the ICANN staff and advisors...Is it because they
support a Sunrise, most businesses want?? If so ICANN, the legal problems associated
with the Sunrise, I can tell you are not worth it, based on the fact, it would be
creating new TM law, without the court system...Stick to UDRP and listen to IOD with
it's innovative plan, whereby TM holders can replace a registration be put on hold,
to go through the UDRP process, or whereby a applicant can voluntary give up the
domain in question...
Furthermore (with regards to Afilias)...What kind of competition
would result in a Afilias (CORE) model if they have non-COMPETE clauses in their
agreements with each other......I realize that NC clauses are a normal part of business,
but do we want them to be used as a matter of practice between registrars (creates
inefficiency and monopolies)
This clearly needs to be looked at for if competition
in the DNS is to flourish there SHOULD NOT BE ANY non-compete clauses....UNLESS you
are IN FACT of the SAME group with the SAME goals...and the SAME territory...IN this
instance the SAME represents continued stagnation and inefficiency (CORE Model)
which will produce the very same outcomes we have currently.
ABOUT COMPETITION:
....You (the Board) extended a hand to the "smaller operators" a few years ago by
inviting Register.com and CORE registrars the chance to become testbed registrars
to compete with NSI.....Did these companies have the money IOD does now or the expertise..I
remember they were complaining at the high costs($100 K)
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,,3_111241,00.html
(Comments
from CORE on the testbed process)
>>>"Stubbs said one of the most problematic
elements of the contract is the requirement that registrars take out a $100,000 insurance
policy payable to NSI.
Stubbs said CORE has encountered problems with securing
a performance bond, because they are normally assigned to large corporations and
not non-profits such as CORE.
He said CORE is lining up $100,000 in cash to satisfy
NSI's requirement. But he said the Department of Commerce, which negotiated the contract
on behalf of registrars, needs to go back to the table if the process is going to
work.
We have confidence that the Commerce Department and the people responsible
for oversight will make the necessary changes in order to make the contractual relationship
more equitable for non-testbed registrars. If they don't do the right thing, the
registrars in the future will be nobody but the AT&Ts, AOLs and big companies. "The
little guys will be exempted from the process." <<<<<
TAKE NOTE ICANN OF THE
VERY LAST SENTENCE !!!!
DISCLAIMER: Yes, I am a IOD supporter....but
one that has fought on many issues and is a ICANN At-Large member.
ONE THING TO
NOTE ON THE APPLICATION REVIEW: As far as the commentary on the application
comments by ICANN and the advisors, I felt they should have gone more into detail
when they expressed their views, especially given the level of expertise of this
group...
Comments such as:
>>>a. Total Capacity. It
is not clear if IOD can manage the higher level of capacity. Its simulations
suggest it can, but IOD has no experience operating any kind of system at this scale.
Also, the current registry is “unofficial”, so it is likely that all aspects of its
operation are much less complex and troublesome than an “official” registry of similar
size.>>>>>
When they say, it is not clear....that is troublesome, as they need
to reference what they used to dispute IOD's claim...They do not indicate any methods
whatsoever....It appears their only reason for disputing IOD's abilities is because
they have an "unofficial" registry...If you have EVER read technical reviews by PhD's
or experienced technical individuals...this summary is questionable at best..Also
whatever happened to the "proof-of-concept" method ...Hasn't IOD shown that they
are capable of handling a registry??...(Goes to the heart of proving that it is stable
and capable)
MORE TROUBLING COMMENTS:
>>>IOD’s plan to handle scaling may not
work, in which case they would be unable to handle the likely high demand for their
system. This is particularly important because the plan does not include a
start-up throttling mechanism. Therefore, its modest system, even if scaled
up in terms of hardware, will be exposed to a very high load immediately<<<<
Which
system will NOT experience a high load...Furthermore in IOD's application they have
ACTUALLY tested their systems to high peak performance...and PASSED...what more could
you want as an evaluation team as this "hard" evidence of its capabilities...Lastly...with
Dot Web having been in operation for 4 1/2 years, there are obviously registrations
taken, SPREAD OUT all over the globe (not just the U.S as falsely claimed)....Therefore
if anything you will not see the problems you would with a "fresh slate" registry...That
is one reason why NSI was so successful, as it had registrations and then gradually
built itself up...Instead of the reverse...a mad dash...that is important..
MORE
PROBLEMATIC COMMENTS:
>>>>This combination creates a very large influx of money
to finance operations, with IOD’s cash balance increasing from $450,000 to $37.4
million in three months at the 50 percent confidence level, which is 83 times larger.
The need for this influx presumably is the motivation for IOD’s insistence on being
the sole registrar during startup. Nonetheless, the business/technical team
does not believe these projections are realistic<<<<<<<<
AGAIN, the language
in their comments are vague and they do not back up their OWN claims ....I did go
to the Methodology Section (see link below) of what the advisors used to evaluate
the applications with, and frankly I was shocked...There was no computer model simulations
used of expected capability, there was just no "hard science" involved in this process
that I can tell....Here again, I have written scientific documents as well as read
them, and these evaluations have alot to be desired, based on their methodology,
if in fact the Advisors did the review...(Classify and Categorize applications in
groups...If they pass a certain classification, they move ON???) Also why were the
public comments allowed in the review....In the Name-Space and iDomain applications
IOD was mentioned (for what purpose)...If anything these comments whether for or
against should have been left out. This was supposed to be an objective review
of the applications and when you have comments by individuals that never left their
name and affiliation should never be published, especially in the manner they were
posted...My feeling is on the public comment board, it was there for us to "bring
this process in the open" and to get dialogue going to solve the problems before
us...Again, I didn't see the relevance, and this "dumbs down" the whole review (even
further)...
I realize that the DSNO board, yokahoma meetings produced the criteria
(consensus), however most of the applications would pass those criteria...It was
these advisors, that were supposed to "vet" out the problematic applications based
on sound technical and business/legal methodology to back up what their saying....Lastly,
one glaring aspect of the reviews that was missing is:
What impact do the applicants
have on competition in the DNS???
Will a consortium, whereby everyone is linked
together by non-compete clauses promote competition? What is the price to enter
this group...Will this group use it's members money for ICANN's legal expenses to
squash the "little guy"---
or
Will a group that has changed afiliations twice
in the last month create confidence, and thereby promote competition....
or
Will
a registry that literally has the backing of most internet users, promote competition;
a registry that was created by ingenuity and sweat be uploaded and foster technology
competition; or lastly a registry that is truly representative of people from 95
countries around the globe..
When does NSI's contract expire??