Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: anthony
Date/Time: Sat, October 14, 2000 at 12:53 AM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.73 using Windows 95
Score: 5
Subject: Vote of confidence in IOD and .web

Message: 		 

 
       
      It is difficult, even with hind sight to map out the couse of events over the past four or five years clearly. It has been a turbulant journey thats for sure.

I have been following this race as it were over that time. Initially no one focussed on the choice of TLD. It was just the next one that IANNA had in mind.

From memory IOD were the third applicant. I believe the first two pulled out for some reason, putting IOD at the top of the list.

The debate for years was whether or not there should be new TLDs at all. I could not and cannot see why there was ever such a fuss. I hope we are all agreed now that it is a sensible thing to do.

IOD were ahead of the game in 1996. Indeed I doubt whether we would actually be at this stage now if it were not for their persistance in encouraging an expansion of the TLDs secondary to their .web regestrar.

They had a clear interest in the TLDs being expanded to include theirs, but no one else did and as a result there was much dragging of feet.  

Now there is obviously incentive for other interested parties in trying to devalue the IOD application. The prize of .web is more now than it ever was.

The IOD application

http://www.icann.org/tlds/web1/

is both thorough and appropriate as are the two other applications

http://www.icann.org/tlds/info1/

http://www.icann.org/tlds/dot1/ (not yet posted)

In fact you would expect nothing less at this stage. The three applications must be very similar. They are all bidding to do exactly the same thing - at least in terms of the .web section of the second and third application.

For IOD's competitiors there is little they can do but attack the very beginning.

I read the links posted earlier in the thread above. They bring back some [ahem - fond?] memories of discussions I have not read for several years. They are not directly relevant here but do serve to emphasise just how long the IOD team have been striving to achieve this goal for so long.

It is interesting that parties which formerly opposed them may now applying for the same.

IOD's was not an application based on cost analysis or projected profit ratio. They did not survey the most popular TLDs and apply for the top five or top three. They applied for .web when most of us could still get the .com address we wanted!

The IOD application is good and so it ought to be. They have had enough time to perpare it. There can be no reason now why their application is declined. If there were ever a reason it would have been addressed by now.

Fundamentally though, the IOD application is based on a belief that they can make the internet better. For that reason they win my support.

The other two .web applications simply serve to confirm that in 1996, they were right.
    
 

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy