Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
Username: |
Hunter |
Date/Time: |
Fri, October 27, 2000 at 4:18 AM GMT |
Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98 |
Score: |
5 |
Subject: |
Confusion about .TV’s finances |
Message: |
|
I don’t understand the numbers entered into the DNC proposal Section
D13.1.2 says that the Company began registering .tv domain names in April, 2000 In
section D13.4.3 Internal interim financial statements through August, 2000 for .TV
are referenced as Exhibit J. This outline document shows .TV’s revenues at $1.433m
for the 5 months April 200 to August 2000 – ie this is their total revenue from .TV
names. Section 13.1.2 says that as of September 25, 2000 dotTV had registered over
100,000 names within the .tv top-level domain. By my calculation this means that
the average price per domain name sold is $14 ($1,433,000 / 100,000). Yet the cheapest
.TV domain name available on their web site is priced at $50. Further, it is clear
from their press releases that some premium .TV names have been sold for large amounts.
free.tv, china.tv and net.tv were each sold for $100,000 which gives an average sale
price for the other 99,997 domains as $11. On Oct 3rd, 2000 the Financial Times
reported ‘Business for dotTV is going so well that the company recently paid Tuvalu
Dollars 20m.’. These numbers don’t appear to reconcile. Could someone from .TV
please explain this. Thank you
|
| |
Message Thread:
- .nom Application by the dotNOM Consortium Moderator, October 7 @ 10:11 PM (32/69)
- End price Hastings, November 6 @ 12:04 AM (1/8)
- Legal responcibility? Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 10:57 PM (0/0)
- global focus Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 10:53 PM (0/0)
- Unclear financial costs and structure griffiths, November 5 @ 9:56 PM (2/2)
- separation of commercial and pesonal domains Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 9:13 PM (1/2)
- Accounting discrepancies hunter, November 5 @ 4:09 AM (1/1)
- Clarification of financial information Hunter, November 4 @ 9:55 AM (0/0)
- Multiple people with the same name Hunter, November 4 @ 9:46 AM (1/1)
- .NOM sounds too much like .COM julie, November 4 @ 4:14 AM (1/3)
- tech view of .nom techchick, November 4 @ 2:54 AM (0/0)
- .nom- CORE or dotnom consortium? Ted Hanks, November 4 @ 2:46 AM (0/0)
- dotNOM Consortium Walter Bergfeld, November 4 @ 12:29 AM (0/0)
- .nom alireza, November 3 @ 9:04 PM (1/1)
- .NOM can be great alireza, November 3 @ 8:57 PM (0/0)
- Same problem... PHXbird, November 3 @ 5:50 PM (1/2)
- .nom jedrink24, November 3 @ 5:34 PM (1/2)
- I agree with Jim Chen on .nom BionicBro, November 3 @ 2:45 AM (0/0)
- dot whatever PinkFish, November 3 @ 2:20 AM (1/3)
- demand for .nom Jim Chen, November 2 @ 8:53 PM (0/0)
- .NOM makes great sense DRrandy, November 2 @ 5:56 AM (0/0)
- dotNOM Jer072, November 2 @ 2:33 AM (1/1)
- .nom proposal is an excellent idea tiger74, November 2 @ 1:56 AM (0/0)
- .nom consortium wayanna, November 2 @ 1:47 AM (0/0)
- .nom consortium lindaw, November 2 @ 1:01 AM (0/0)
- wholesale price UV, October 30 @ 5:50 PM (2/8)
- Excellent Proposal cbuck@usc.edu, October 27 @ 7:04 PM (0/0)
- Confusion about .TV’s finances Hunter, October 27 @ 4:18 AM (0/0)
- How does the applicant propose handling multiple people with the same name? hunter, October 27 @ 3:42 AM (1/1)
- .nom vs .com/.net for individuals stvtron, October 26 @ 11:59 PM (0/0)
- .nom proposal looks good dc, October 26 @ 11:39 PM (1/2)
- .nom, .pro nschlegel, October 25 @ 3:48 PM (0/0)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:25 PM (0/0)
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy