Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: cgrady
Date/Time: Sat, October 14, 2000 at 10:07 AM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.75 using Windows NT
Score: 5
Subject: Yes, I do know how to read but I do not think that YOU know how to read between the lines.

Message:
 

 
        Anonymous Webster,

Yes, I do know how to read but I do not think that YOU know how to "read between the lines".

You seem to have missed the point completely. Anybody with business experience knows that these numbers, percentages, and dollar values mean nothing.

I ask you . Can Network Solutions also own a portion of a company that also has interest in Afilias? Can Ken Stubbs be on the boards of as many companies as he wants which have interest in Afilias? ... and still be involved with ICANN through DNSO?

As I am sure you are aware, he is on the board of CORE and a board member of Afilias. My question is,  where does this incest end? Dealings such as these make can quickly turn an 11% maximum ownership by a "Member Registrar", as they call it, into a completely irrelevant issue.

And what is the exact definition of a registrar? Is it an organization that handles the public's orders for domain names? or does Afilias itself, as well as ICANN, consider Afilias to be a manager of the "registry" and not a registrar. In reality they are really two different things according to ICANN. Afilias can manage the registry without being a registrar to the public.

Their application states "no Member Registrar will be allowed to own more than 11% of Afilias". I could be wrong but there seems to be difference to ICANN between an "Accredited Registrar" and the company that "manages the registry".  If this is the case then there is a loophole thus making the 11% limit irrelevant. Sorry to keep repeating myself but ....

For your information, a monopoly is not IOD managing the .WEB registry with perhaps 9 other new TLDs to choose from .. a total of 13 TLDs and countless other country specific domains. If that were the case then the other new applicants are monopolies as well as all of the other country specific domains. Having a choice between a .WEB, .COM, .NET, .SHOP, .THIS, .THAT is far from a monopoly. A monopoly is having no other company to turn to (thank god those days are over). A monopoly is also a company directly, or indirectly controlling registries for all of the best TLD's on the market ... .com, .net, .org, .web, .site, .shop etc.

Is Image Online's John S. Frangie with 52.4%, Christopher Ambler with 37%, Peggy Pierce 5% with ownership, and Tracey Thomas with 5% ownership (as you stated)  also on the boards of countless other companies, all applying for different TLDs? Not that I know of. Do they also have a front door key to the ICANN offices? I hardly think so.

Is Afilias statement that they will charge US$5.75, guaranteed for any reasonable length of time? I hardly think so. What happens when there is suddenly an increase in their overall "cost of operation"? What happens when operating costs suddenly exceed the their stated $5.75 price tag. Is that all YOU need to qualify them as a registrar? A low price tag?

My point is, and I apologize for putting it this way. All of these numbers in all of these applications are complete B.S.! Anybody that puts together a business plan, (and that is basically what these applications are, a business plan,  to operate a registry) ... anybody knows that numbers in a business plan are, for the most part, complete speculation.

I am certain that Ken Stubbs is a decent fellow and has valuable insight into the costs associated with running a registry. But in reality Afilias has no established registry, in fact Afilias has no employees according to their application. Image Online on the other hand was given permission years ago and has successfully run the .WEB TLD since then. They have had ample time to build, operate, improve, test, improve, fine tune, fine tune and fined tune more,  their registry infrastructure since IANA gave them approval in 1995.

Afilias, on the other hand, incorporated last month and, to date, seems to have nothing more than words on paper. As the saying goes ... talk is cheap.

Honestly, I'm far from a biased on this issue. I've simply made up my mind based on REAL life experiences with Image Online.

Kind Regards,
Chris Grady
President
Vieodata, Inc.
     

 


Message Thread: