Actually, I was approached to write a book about my experiences over the past 5 years,
and turned the offer down - who has time?!You're right though. It makes no sense
to me how we could be criticized for running the registry for four years and have
our ability to scale questioned, while Afilias, who has absolutely no infrastructure
at all, gets a glowing recommendation.
It really flies in the face of logic. I
invite you to read our application's technical section, and then read Afilias's technical
section. Just about all of our performance numbers are within 5% of each other! In
most cases, our performance numbers exceed theirs! Yet we're called inadequate, and
they're praised?
Can anyone explain this to me?
We were ready to give ICANN a
tour of our facilities and demonstrate the scaling abilities first-hand, but then
ICANN cancelled the consultation period and we were never given a chance.
The criticisms
made against us are not backed-up by any objective facts. The reviewers seem to simply
say, "we don't think they can scale," even though we've already shown that we can.
Where
is the document produced by Arthur Anderson? Where is the document produced by the
technical reviewers?
Christopher Ambler