I read on General-Purpose TLDs review:Footnote 2.
"We emphasize
again that the evaluation at this stage was based solely on the applications themselves,
and the material and information contained therein.
Thus, the use of the word
"demonstrate," which is intended to reflect the fact that these judgments were made
on the basis of the applications, and not on extra-application facts or information".
This
is the most important fact but it is included in a footnote only!
Actually only
IOD has "demonstrated" something at this time.
IOD's .web registry is functioning
and can enter the DNS system very soon,
while other applications contain only
promises on paper.
So I don't understand how the following offensive comment may
make sense:
"In the judgment of the technical team, the small pool of talent available
to Image Online Design is a very serious deficiency in Image Online Design's proposal.
Given the lack of identified technical and management resources, the technical evaluation
team concluded that there is a very significant risk that Image Online Design will
not be able to react quickly to unpredictable surges in demand, especially during
the critical startup period. A failure to service a global customer base on a 24x7
basis, particularly during the initial startup period, could fatally damage the reputation
of the new TLD."
If this is true for IOD, it is even more for other applicants!!!
Otherwise,
if ICANN considers valid only promises on paper,
I am sorry I did not file myself
an application for .web !
Of course, on my application I would have promised that
I can
handle 1 million registrations / minute and I would have charged
them
only $0.01 each. Would ICANN have believed this?
Would I have "demonstrated" my
technical ability?
ICANN, please appreciate REAL FACTS and don't miss this fantastic
opportunity
given by IOD - a functioning .web ready to go!
Otherwise, give .web to Afilias,
and the Internet will wait
several months for technical realization and other
months for
the boring Sunrise Period (that is superflous for protecting
trademarks
and unfair for generic Internet users).
Of course, then expect the obvious anger
of IOD and its supporters,
who will consider this as a real theft.
Regards
Fabrizio
Coppola
Italy