Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: cambler
Date/Time: Tue, October 17, 2000 at 10:10 PM GMT (Tue, October 17, 2000 at 3:10 PM PDT)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: IOD v. IANA, 1997

Message:
 

 
Please check your facts before posting.

Image Online Design brought suit against IANA in 1997 for the specific purpose to stop the signing and implementation of the gTLD MoU, as proposed by the IAHC.

A preliminary motion was not granted, and as the case was preparing to go to full trial, Image Online Design dismissed the case. While some would argue that this was because the preliminary motion was not granted, the fact is that we dropped the suit because we were contacted by the U.S. Government and made aware of the plans to halt the IAHC process and begin a new process. Indeed, that is exactly what happened: the MoU was never enacted, and CORE was never granted their new TLDs (one of which was .web, in a blatant attempt to take it, much like the current attempt by Melbourne IT (a CORE registrar) and Afilias (comprised of NSI and a number of CORE registrars).

Instead, exactly as we said at the time, the U.S. Government's involvement started a new process that leads us to today's ICANN application process.

As we have been doing for the past four-plus years, we are participating in that process, and have submitted our application for the registry that we have been operating ever since IANA instructed us to make it operational in 1996 as a proof of concept.

No other applicant in this entire process has the track-record that Image Online Design has for working on this process, and pioneering the call for competition. Please do keep that in mind, regardless of your feelings on our registrations, pricing, and policy. Those are implementation issues that we can both discuss here, as well as discuss during the negotiation phase with ICANN.

The points to be made here are two:

1. We are the pioneer company in calling for competition, and have been operating in this process since 1995.

2. The other two applications for .web have been submitted by companies that are not only monopolistic in nature, but also are established players, with established market share. They have multiple applications, and are also specified as registry operators for other applications. Their mark can been seen in both many other applications as well as in the ICANN leadership. They are, in short, the existing status quo.

Image Online Design, on the other hand, is a single company with a single application for a single TLD. The application is technically sound, shows a well-thought-out process, and is backed by an operational registry that has over four years of operational experience.

If this process is fair and open, the choice for .web is clearly Image Online Design's .Web Registry.
 


Message Thread: