Your argument falls apart because it's based on the premise that our .Web registry
is somehow "unofficial." Were that true, you'd have an unimpeachable argument. Thankfully,
it's not true. Our registry was created and put online in 1996 at the requests of
IANA. History shows us that Dr. Postel was weeks away from creating new TLDs when
the process was taken from him by the Internet Society and their IAHC effort. We
all know how that, and their creation, CORE, went: it was stopped, rather violently,
by the U.S. Government.But the fact remains that IANA requested that we create
a proof-of-concept and we did. ICANN, which has taken over the responsibilities of
IANA, also recognized this fact when its chair, Dr. Cerf, made his comments in November
of 2000, stating that he could not support giving the .Web TLD to any other applicant
than Image Online Design.
Whether you like the TLD or not is your opinion. I invite
you not to purchase any. Whether the existing registrants should be there or not
is not open to debate, as they are there as a result of IANA's directive. No other
registry can claim this. What companies like Afilias did was to come in at the last
minute and promote that new competition be given, instead, to established players.
They didn't want more competition for .com - why would they, when they're comprised
of the existing top .com registrars?
Are supporters of our registry objective?
Not really, but certainly moreso than you give them credit. They saw IANA's proof-of-concept
request and chose to support it. Do they gain as a result? Yes, quite probably so.
Such is life in a free market. First-to-market and first-mover-advantage are tried
and true aspects of such a market. It sounds to me like a few sour grapes spoil any
objective argument.
All I hear are arguments about how the TLD is bad, or how
the supporters are opportunists. Fine - let's concede those two arguments, as they're
not very relevant to the question at hand: Why isn't there more competition in the
DNS? Why are the only new registries created run by existing market players? Why
was Afilias's technical plan, which was identical to Image Online Design's plan approved
when IOD was not? In light of that, why hasn't Afilias's failure to live up to that
plan been acted upon? Why has their neglect of their contractual obligations been
ignored?
And, most importantly, what concrete technical arguments against Image
Online Design's registry exist? Because I've not heard a single one yet. All I've
heard is griping and innuendo. Well, I'm proud to say that we have the technology
in place and tested, the funding secured and in the bank, the personnel on staff,
and the facilities standing by for approval. As we did November, and as we have had
for the past 5 years.
So ignore the people on here that you disagree with and call
them names if you like - but it doesn't change the facts one bit. If you have factual
evidence, state it. Unlike other applicants, and certainly unlike approved registries,
I'm here to answer the tough questions. I stand behind our company, and I'm calling
you out.