I would like to commend ICANN for at least addressing IOD as being unique.
I also sympathize with the ICANN members (real people) who probably feel anxious,
hurt, and offended because IOD has been relentless in their efforts to gain the respect
of ICANN. Having been more-or-less attacked by IOD and their supporters, I certainly
understand why ICANN might at first sympathize with other applicants. Being
in the spotlight, however, they have no choice but to be cool and try to do the right
thing. IOD has backed off and ICANN has had an opportunity to now lash back
at IOD in a formal way. The character and make-up of Chris Ambler’s operation has
been “exposed”, by ICANN. So let’s get on with the business of choosing registries.I
firmly believe that IOD has presented itself with a reasonable application.
ICANN is certainly offended by the fact that IOD maintained a registry after they
asserted, years after the registry was opened, that they disapproved of “pre-registrations”.
Well, what would ICANN have this existing registry do? Shutting down an existing
registration process is very different from avoiding starting a “pre-registration”
process. Part of demonstrating the viability of any company is in displaying consumer
trust. To simply stop the registration process after these general comments
about pre-registrations would instill a lack of trust in IOD supporters. That would’ve
clearly had a negative impact on IODs viability. If ICANN had specifically
acknowledged IOD and told them directly to stop the registration process, then at
least IOD would have had some rationale for doing so in the eyes of tens of thousands
of supporters. IOD is wanting to work with ICANN. I would like to think
that ICANN is wanting to work with new companies like IOD.
Regarding the price
of registrations, I don’t think this should be a concern at all. The IOD registration
costs to consumers had been established a long time ago at a rate that was similar
to other registrars. Afilias naturally has a better likelihood of being successful
because they are already established and are more comfortable operating at a loss
for a longer period of time. So what. The likelihood of IOD being successful is also
very high! ICANN will have to determine what the cost of adding competition is and
be fair in dictating how IODs price structure should be changed. ICANN is essentially
awarding little monopolies and should take an active role in guiding the price structures
so that consumers are treated fairly. To suggest that existing groups of registrars
can police themselves better than a new single company is plain nonsense.
ICANN can’t simply be a passive participant in pricing.
As far as scaling up operations,
ICANN seems to provide circular logic. They intimate that IOD doesn’t have
existing quality technical staff, nor the resources to recruit them. To suggest
that they couldn’t recruit from an endless supply of qualified technical experts
given the nod of approval from ICANN makes no sense. Should they have been
expected to do so thus far? I don’t think so. Maybe ICANN should’ve made
the registration fee one million dollars instead of fifty thousand dollars.
That might’ve weeded out all new potential competition.
As far as I can tell, IOD
was the only company to come forward with a “proof-of-concept” database without already
being in the existing business. What is not to like about that idea? I view
IODs registry as an admirable mission that ICANN avoids recognizing and should be
congratulating! If ICANN were an unbiased government sponsored granting agency, they
would surely recognize IOD as standing head-and-shoulders above the rest with years
of experience in registration and proof-of-concept data! I think that ICANN
should help new companies like IOD along in an effort to foster “real” competition.