Return to tldreport Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: mediaevum
Date/Time: Mon, November 13, 2000 at 10:20 PM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.61 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: Questionable application evaluation

Message:
 

 
               
I was concerned to read the evaluators’ comments about Image Online Design’s application as compared with its evaluation of Afilias’. I found a twisted double-standard, lack of logical reasoning and a certain elitism to be involved.

The evaluators cast serious doubts upon IOD’s ability to register dot webs; it furthermore questions the credibility of 20,000 dot webs having been registered. Rather than randomly and bizarrely questioning the veracity of such statements, perhaps the evaluators should have investigated further (the point is for applications to be intelligently reviewed, is it not?). If there is a question of the registrations existing, it is incumbent upon the evaluators to ask to review the evidence (e.g., the data base). Certainly, IOD is fully able to provide registrations. It has been doing so since IANA gave it the go-ahead four years ago. All this is easily verifiable, instead of being subject to derisive cursory statements.

A complaint is made that IOD has no experience running a larger registry. However, it has not been given the opportunity. Such a statement implies that TLDs should only be managed through established registries. This means that newcomers to the field who have demonstrated some proficiency are still not within the purview of what the evaluators consider to be acceptable. The result is either a monopoly or a “good old boy network” that keeps out the new blood. IOD’s “several years [sic] experience” running a registry is not for some reason considered valid experience establishing and maintaining a data base. On the contrary, IOD’s experience managing the 20,000 names demonstrates flexibility, innovation and chance to identify any “bugs” in the system.

Criticism is made of IOD’s system. If the above-mentioned, easily checked material has not been checked, it is doubtful that the evaluators have fully checked out IOD’s software and hardware. Not having visited IOD’s facility, and not knowing the extent of its upgrades, the evaluators are not in a position to judge its ability or inability to handle an influx of registrant requests. Their reasoning is vague and, frankly, nonexistent. The concession that “they have demonstrated competence in all relevant areas” seems to be a “by the way” of no importance based on the earlier comments.

The lack of consistent reasoning is apparent in the evaluators’ complaint that IOD’s staff is also involved in other corporations. The comments on Afilias (whose application is much more favorably reviewed) do not take such a negative view of this intended registry's personnel being involved in other companies. Afilias is a new company, rapidly constructed  in September to request registry status. It does not have the history of service and data base activity that IOD offers. An honest mathematical question was raised: if Afilias is honest in its financial projections, it would rapidly dip severely into the red. This is not a forecast that would bode well for a stable registry.

This kaleidoscope of bizarre reasoning on the part of the evaluators continues. IOD is lambasted for not having a second office; the Afilias address is not its own, but is within a highly-prestigious New York legal firm. IOD’s ability to handle a large influx is questioned, despite its well-functioning database; Afilias is praised despite its having no database. IOD earns negative points for not having a large enough body of personnel; Afilias has no clear personnel at all. The lack of cohesive logic goes on and on. Furthermore, no mention at all is made of Afilias’ request for several TLDs. IOD has only asked for one. Surely diversity in the registrars is a prime necessity to encourage competition and service. Lastly, a post by Christopher Ambler notes the varied serious errors made by the evaluators. Such mistakes show a blatant disregard for truth and seem to favor a slant toward some hidden agenda.

Thank you for reviewing these comments. I trust a re-review of the applications by more careful evaluators will allow for a more cogent appraisal, viewing the applicants regarding what they have already demonstrated, and allowing newcomers entrance to the registry field.
     

 


Message Thread:


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy