- To: <net-rfp-general@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Kelly Yeh" <kyeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 20:03:50 -0500
I think it is important for the security and reliability of .net that
the company given the contract has a background in providing
comprehensive service and also the financial backing to guarantee its
operation. My business depends on .net being "always on" and worry that
the .net contract maybe given to a company that does not have the
resources to make sure it remains functional.
In nearly every business I have been involved in, depending on just one
product or client for all of your income was considered fiscal suicide.
I am concerned that most of the companies bidding on .net have no other
source of income to support improvements or unexpected infrastructure
costs. In addition to unexpected costs, ICANN should make sure the
potential .net controller is ready to invest possibly hundreds of
millions in infrastructure just to support the upcoming boom in internet
Beyond the fiscal, many of the potential .net companies seem to lack the
necessary technical personnel with the institutional knowledge to run
what amounts to a key part of the world's business infrastructure. Any
operator must have sufficient technical personnel with the relevant
domain registry and DNS experience to keep .net up and performing at its
Regardless of the politics involved, the current service provided by
VeriSign has a solid performance track-record, and gives those of us in
the industry consistent, reliable responses (5ms with less than 1%
packet loss). No one else does that.
When you take into consideration current performance, fiscal stability,
and institutional knowledge, I think ICANN should retain VeriSign. We
just can't afford a 'feel good' solution to a critical infrastructure
Phalanx Technology Group, Inc.