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/report-iiib1a-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/la2000/archive/scribe-icann-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 doesnââ¬â¢t initially plan to implement.
ââ¬Â¢ 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 theyââ¬â¢re combined registrar/registry. But we primarily want registry proposals. That they ââ¬Åmightââ¬Â 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.
ââ¬Â¢ 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.
ââ¬Â¢ Pisanty: Separating IODââ¬â¢s registry from registrar, size of technical team, finances ââ¬â all being corrected on the fly. Trying to adjust to perceived needs rather than having a stable well-thought-out plan.
ââ¬Â¢ 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.
ââ¬Â¢ Dyson: All else equal, favor the little guy. But IODââ¬â¢s business model seems unrealistic to me. Has loyal customers, but how will that work at $35 a head if other options are available.
ââ¬Â¢ Kraaijenbrink: IOD goes against everything weââ¬â¢ve worked on the last two years ââ¬â they join registrar and registry, and they have a high price. Amazed to see this application submitted.