Return to tldreport Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: cambler
Date/Time: Sun, November 12, 2000 at 2:10 AM GMT (Sat, November 11, 2000 at 6:10 PM PST)
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: The staffing issues you bring up...

Message:
 

It's interesting to note the staffing concerns that you point out.

ICANN stated that it felt that the pool of available talent was limited in our case, and then praised Afilias for having a great pool of talent. This flies in the face of reality.

In the case of Afilias, where are they located? To my knowledge, they've not stated where they will locate themselves. How can they hire people, not knowing where they will be? IOD is in San Luis Obispo, California, which is equidistant between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Many of our contractors live in San Francisco and commute to San Luis Obispo to work for us. We compensate them accordingly, and none have complained so far. Where will Afilias's contractors have to go?

We identified Cal Poly SLO as a pool of talent. ICANN presumed that we meant to use them for our top-level staffing. This is not only unrealistic, but one must question the evaluators who would think this. Cal Poly will provide us with more than enough customer service personnel, as well as entry-level IT staff. This is a proven fact. For our higher-level staffing, we will hire from out of the area. I already have many top-notch networking and development professionals who have indicated that they wish to accept a position with us. Since we've put a small jobs list on our web site, we've received inquiries on just about all of them, and multiple ones at that.

It is unrealistic to presume that just because Afilias is comprised of 19 companies with competant staffing, that Afilias itself will benefit. Does anyone actually believe that Register.com will allow their head of IT or their CTO to quit and become an Afilias employee? With member companies all over the world, they'd have to travel extensively. More likely, the member companies will loan out their employees on an as-needed basis. That's called contracting, and it's exactly what IOD is doing now. We have contractors performing most of the critical tasks, and quite a few of them wish to turn their contracting positions into full-time positions as soon as possible.

Had ICANN actually asked us about this, rather than just assuming the worst (as they appear to have done in almost all cases), it would have been clear.

Why would ICANN's independant reviewers presume the best in the case of the other applications, yet presume the worst in the case of ours? I'm not making this up, read the evaluation for yourself and you'll see. Can someone explain this to me?

In each and every case of criticism, we have shown that it was based on error or erroneous assumption on the part of ICANN.

In all cases, these asumptions are presented as fact, when they are nothing more than opinion, and there's no documentation to back it up. Where is the Arthur Anderson report? Where is the write-up from the actual technical reviewers that were listed?

Is this fair?

Christopher Ambler

Christopher Ambler
CTO, Image Online Design, Inc.
The .Web Internet Domain Registry
http://webtld.com


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy