Return to tldreport Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Anthony 2nd
Date/Time: Sun, November 12, 2000 at 3:10 AM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.73 using Windows 95
Score: 5
Subject: Yes that seems fair.

Message:
 

 
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      
     

 


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy