(Unfortunately I am not able to understand very much by listening
by RealPlayer
- I am Italian). Here is the delayed scribe's note
about what you quoted:
Touton: IODesign a small company with
limited resources. They anticipated a period of exclusivity, especially during land
rush period, to collect $35/domain to fund growth of business. Performance numbers
about the same. But Affilias and Neustar offer thicker higher-service registry that
IOD doesn’t initially plan to implement.
• Cerf: Internal oscillation. Have some sympathy for IODesign as pioneers. But concerned
about viability of the proposition. Sounds like this only works for them if they’re
combined registrar/registry. But we primarily want registry proposals. That they
“might” be able to get a protocol developed is troubling; software can take longer
to develop than anyone expects. Getting multiple registrars in place could be a significant
hurdle. Causes me to hesitate.
• Roberts:
Ambler deserves credit for work done. But the economic model proposed is exactly
what NSF did with NSI six years ago. The absence of competition in the proposal troubles
me.
• Pisanty: Separating IOD’s registry
from registrar, size of technical team, finances – all being corrected on the fly.
Trying to adjust to perceived needs rather than having a stable well-thought-out
plan.
• Touton: Evaluation team tried
to focus on application. Board can place greater weight on revisions, or even request
revisions. But some revisions may so fundamentally change the business model as to
be of great concern. Proposal may become incoherent as a result of some kinds of
changes.
• Dyson: All else equal, favor
the little guy. But IOD’s business model seems unrealistic to me. Has loyal customers,
but how will that work at $35 a head if other options are available.
• Kraaijenbrink: IOD goes against everything we’ve worked
on the last two years – they join registrar and registry, and they have a high price.
Amazed to see this application submitted.
|
|
|