Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: pvos
Date/Time: Tue, October 24, 2000 at 2:12 PM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.06 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Follow up to DNSO - with regards to IOD application


                        Let me begin by declaring my vested interests:
I have domains that I registered with IOD in Oct. 96.  At that time they were the only serious alternative to NSI.  I am not new to domain name registrations.  My NIC handle is PV12.  I have registered well over a hundred domain names with NSI and its predecessor.      

Basically, I think the primary point which sometimes gets lost in the debates is stated very well by DNSO:
"Diversity of service and additional choices for users are the primary
objective of adding new top-level domains."

When I registered the .web domains with IOD in Oct. of 96 they represented to my thinking the best credible alternative to NSI at that time.  The fact that so many of the "alternative" registries went  up in smoke confirms their durability.  Anyone who has dealt with NSI knows that bigger is NOT better. 

The issues brought out to undermine IOD's application seem to revolve around issues of policy implementation.  I have not seen any condemnation of them that could not be equally (even more appropriately) applied to NSI.  I would be interested in hearing any criticism that can be leveled at IOD *exclusively*.  If no such criticism can be made then I think IOD has demonstrated the vision, commitment, and ability to provide this valuable service. 

The fact that they are still standing after so much time has elapsed with so many changes in the ecology along the way suggests they will be able to maintain a credible and sustainable presence. 



Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy