Image Online Design, Inc.'s Response to ICANN's "Report On New TLD Applications"
November 10, 2000ICANN's "Report on New TLD Applications" includes misinformed
criticism of Image Online Design's application as well as several outright errors.
While we are pleased that we have been recommended for further consideration, and
look forward to the negotiation phase as a forum to further educate ICANN on the
merits of our proposal, we feel it necessary to correct the record in an open and
public manner.
We find it distressing that the five years of Image Online Design's
history - including four years of operational experience in running a registry -
is being ignored in this process. Particularly troubling is that ICANN should look
unfavorably upon existing pioneers. The report states that IOD's 20,000 registrants
are "very modest," which contradicts ICANN's own criteria that list stability and
experience among the most important issues in new TLD applications. Clearly,
no other applicant for .Web has our experience as a pioneer registry. In this case,
even "modest" is more than "none." With diversity and competition being among the
most important criteria ICANN has chosen to consider, the complete disregard for
IOD's long history in promoting competition as well as the fact that Afilias (another
applicant for .Web) is comprised of companies that represent 98% of the existing
market suggests bias in the information the report chooses to highlight.
The report's
technical criticisms of IOD are questionable in some cases and completely false in
others. For instance, the report criticizes IOD's staffing requirement of 70 people,
yet fail to criticize the other .web applicants for the same requirements.
The report criticizes IOD for currently having only one technical employee now, but
don't fail to mention that the other two .web applicants list no technical employees.
The report falsely states that IOD's registry will provide 28.6 TPS, which is completely
incorrect. Other technical misrepresentations are abundant.
In terms of finances,
The ICANN report also criticizes the fee IOD stated in its application for registry
services. That fee, $15 per name, was selected after much thought and research.
However, we feel that the market should decide. If, as some suggest, $15 is too high,
the market will indicate that and we will lower the price. It is also important
to note that the $6 fee that Network Solutions currently charges is based due to
the fact that, for the many years it enjoyed a monopoly, it charged $35 per name
per year. Only because NSI's infrastructure is bought and paid for is the lower
cost possible. It should also be noted that Afilias , is charging $6 per name, but
shows a loss on their application's financials for the first four years of operation.
We fail to see how a registry that loses money year after year can be considered
stable. The ICANN staff report also criticizes our assumptions with respect to market
share, but fails to substantiate these disagreements, as the independent reports
by ICANN's financial consultants has not been made public. In the absence of any
evidence, we must respectfully disagree with ICANN's criticism. That said, however,
IOD is fully prepared to work with ICANN on any financial disagreements with the
goal of reaching a workable projection. This, in our mind, is a key item for the
negotiation phase, which we understand from the staff report that we are to shortly
enter. We look forward to resolving any problems or disagreements that may remain.
The
report also inaccurately represents IOD's funding levels. IOD's application
shows financial commitments of $2 million immediately, $6 million when accepted,
and a credit letter open to discussing any additional amount necessary. IOD has already
spent approximately $1 million in creating its registry, and has existing infrastructure
that the other applicants have yet to even purchase, much less install and test.
The ICANN report presumed that the figure of $450,000, which represents cash-on-hand,
was the sum and total of IOD's funding. This is, plainly, not the case. IOD has clearly
shown that it is sufficiently funded to operate our registry over the past four years.
Finally,
the question has been raised as to the six-month timeframe for accepting registrars
other than ourselves. IOD had anticipated that it would take six months to finish
development and testing of its registrar protocol system, but in the light of clear
consensus that this time frame is too long (as expressed directly to IOD as well
as the numerous comments on the ICANN public comment forum), we are now committed
to 30 to 60 day time frame. NeuStar, another applicant, has listed six to nine months
as their timeframe. Afilias, initially against outside registrars who were
not "bought-in" members, has said that they would accept new registrars, but has
failed to provide a timetable. While ICANN acknowledges this commitment, it chooses
to not consider it, calling it a significant change to the application. It is disturbing
that this is how constructive responses to valid criticism are treated. Of course,
there was no criticism of either Afilias or NeuStar on their plans or timetables.
ICANN's
report seriously misrepresents the technical and financial merits of IOD's application,
and shows that there is no technical or financial criticism that stands up to scrutiny.
It is our sincere hope that ICANN is not merely laying down the groundwork to refuse
IOD's application.