>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"They're right. We didn't. We designed our system to be
able to handle this without the need for throttling.
Their technical reviewer said
that our registry provided 28.6 TPS. Our application clearly shows that we provide
orders of magnitude more, and can scale both horizontally and vertically to meet
demand. Indeed, the report praised Tucows (the registry operator for Afilias) for
this very expandability, yet not only neglected to mention it in us, but listed a
clearly incorrect TPS number.
>and they didn't think that you ran a global 24x7
service.
I'm sorry? What have we been doing for the past four years? And for zone
servers, we chose UltraDNS as our contractor, which even ICANN had to admit was best-of-breed
(yet they didn't reflect this in their evaluation).
Where are the technical notes
that this was all based on? Where are the calculations by which their experts came
up with 28.6 TPS? Where is ANY DOCUMENTATION other than the summary, which is based
on factually incorrect material?
Still this this is a fair and open process?
Christopher