Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
Username: |
griffiths |
Date/Time: |
Sun, November 5, 2000 at 8:09 PM GMT |
Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98 |
Score: |
5 |
Subject: |
A completely outsourced solution - with some interesting costs |
Message: |
|
The time is long overdue for the introduction of a personal
name registry, but is this the way it should be done, where the entire operation
is outsourced? It is unclear exactly what Sarnoff are bringing to this registry,
other than a long history in the development of new hardware technologies and a partnership
with Atomic Tangerine, Compaq, Cap Gemini, Ernst & Young and Exodus. Maybe
the application should have been submitted by Atomic Tangerine? Although funding
of $14,700,000 is required, there does not appear to be any indication that this
is in place, more that it will be raised upon delegation. What will be the
cost of this finance, as it is probably the most significant element in the longterm
operation of the registry. There are also some interesting costs - they obviously
expect to have smart offices for a cost of $1,000,000 per quarter on average and
why would a registry be needing to spend on average $1,000,000 per year on research
& development, unless this is misallocated marketing expenditure? The naming structure
also appears to be overly complex, and while the provision of free domains
is admirable, the cost of providing and managing these is identical, albeit they
would be less desirable. The true cost of custom domains is unspecified, but
assumed to be $4 although it is unclear how much revenue would be canabalised through
the free domains.
|
| |
Message Thread:
- .i Application by Sarnoff Corporation Moderator, October 7 @ 10:21 PM (30/38)
- .i TLD and Single Letters B. Ferns, November 5 @ 8:41 PM (0/0)
- A completely outsourced solution - with some interesting costs griffiths, November 5 @ 8:09 PM (0/0)
- Time for a people-centric TLD skey, November 5 @ 7:42 PM (0/0)
- a badly needed idea!!! spareek, November 5 @ 5:09 PM (0/0)
- .i proposal manishie, November 5 @ 5:04 PM (0/0)
- Delighted by the .i submission from Sarnoff rp@1sta.net, November 5 @ 9:57 AM (0/0)
- Support for this application and some suggestions steve smith, November 4 @ 1:06 PM (0/0)
- A powerful structure for ubiquitous personal communications. d_reininger, November 4 @ 12:30 AM (0/0)
- people centric TLD for connecting people - great concept mott, November 3 @ 9:31 PM (0/0)
- MESSAGE simonb, November 3 @ 6:42 PM (1/1)
- Support for .i tld Wendy Suen, November 3 @ 5:57 PM (0/0)
- Great Concept! phillipgb, November 3 @ 5:51 PM (1/1)
- Agreement that .i makes strategic sense for the Internet JNathenson, November 3 @ 1:19 PM (1/1)
- .i proposal from sarnoff jcienski, November 3 @ 1:08 PM (0/0)
- .i Proposal from Sarnoff Corporation. jtodd, November 1 @ 6:09 PM (0/0)
- .i is good for the internet Donovan, November 1 @ 12:18 AM (1/1)
- Help solve the glut of domain names pdesilva, November 1 @ 2:53 AM (0/0)
- New People centric TLD .i ThomasGeorge, October 31 @ 8:54 PM (0/0)
- .geo plus .i = ? adoyle, October 31 @ 8:23 PM (1/1)
- TLD for individuals, an excellent idea. AmitKapoor, October 30 @ 3:22 PM (0/0)
- .i could be my buddy. vpincus, October 30 @ 2:40 PM (0/0)
- .i for the masses. JosephMathew, October 26 @ 4:35 PM (0/0)
- Single character gTLDs are a bad idea mikel5, October 26 @ 1:52 PM (1/3)
- Sounds great, but what about user and community control ? Dom, October 26 @ 8:28 AM (0/0)
- .i proposal peniel, October 26 @ 12:04 AM (0/0)
- What values are envisioned to be associated with .i names? McQuilWP, October 25 @ 8:40 PM (0/0)
- .i proposal works for the developing world shyam, October 24 @ 6:53 AM (0/0)
- Bad idea sjk, October 19 @ 7:44 AM (0/0)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:09 PM (0/0)
- Great application and concept huguesdb, October 16 @ 11:32 PM (0/0)
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy