It is exactly the point that the reports are inconsistent. Either IOD's and Afilias's
report were conducted by completely different people or else they were conducted
by people with an interest in Afilias.when I read the IOD report is seems to suggest
that it is inadequate because IOD are not Afilias.
They use terms like "other applicants
in this group" and then point out that IOD doesn't run as many registryies
or have as much capital as them.
On the one hand the report critisises for not
having enough stanff and then for having too many and then for employing them from
the wrong area and then for them not having the right expertese.
There was not
a single point against Afilias even though there are thirteen board members representing
ninteen companies and no staff at all. Personally I don't find this a fault at this
stage but it is worse than the IOD situation which has raised such alarm with ICANN.
On
a separate note, some of the people here supporting Afilias seem to know you
personally. The text and grammatical construction is rather immature and as the comments
are largely annonymous it isn't clear who they are. One thing I have noticed though
is that as soon as one disappears another appears (like that truth be bold chap that
always wrote in capitals).
Anyway, thanks for clearing up the staffing issue.
As
far as I can tell the only other problems ICANN had with the application was that
you didn't suggest a "demand throttling mechanism to control initial load from the
expected "land rush""
and they didn't think that you ran a global 24x7 service.
Can
you clear these points up also?
Anthony