.Web - webtld.com

[deist]

Does this company have a future? Will I ever get to use the 2 .web's I registered? I think I'd rather get my money back.

[RMF]

I doubt it. I also registered a few webs with them. I'm glad I didn't get sucked in to registering lots.

I think .Web might eventually come out. I think it could come close to taking to over .com, but not close enough.

RMF

[MarkMitford]

They were one of the original alternate TLDs when Jon Postel sort of told people to go off and do their own thing.

As part of the ICANN new tld process they applied for .web (http://www.icann.org/tlds/web1/).

ICANN decidied not to give .web to them for a number of reasons (they didn't even make the first cut but were given another chance because oif the favorable public comments) See http://www.icann.org/tlds/report/rep...1a-09nov00.htm

The board didn't like them for a number of reasons:

No initial seperation of registry and registrar.
High registry price ($15).
Lack of experience.
Principals also running an auto dealership.

The board initially voted to give .web to Afilias then had some discussion concerning the operation of .web in the alternate roots and then decides to give Afilias .info instead of .web

Notes from the board meeting are at:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/l...nn-111600.html

I think they make fascinating reading as in my opinion they show what a completely haphazard way the new TLDs were decided.

Heres the section on .web:

5. 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.

[namedropper]

If you looked at IOD's proposal to ICANN, it was a mess. The proposed numbers for hiring staff and tech support and etc. were absolutely ridiculous. It's like they thought they were going to run the next .com out of the trunk of their car. There's no way those people could have run a real registry at the kind of volume they would have gotten.

I kind of wish ICANN had just given .web to Afilias. They certainly shouldn't have decided not to based upon the fact that IOD had been selling domains that didn't function for years, otherwise the new .biz never would have happened either.

[mole]

It was a good initiative while it lasted. Moral of the story - don't believe in the story that people actually keep their words :(