Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
Username: |
griffiths |
Date/Time: |
Sun, November 5, 2000 at 9:56 PM GMT |
Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98 |
Score: |
5 |
Subject: |
Unclear financial costs and structure |
Message: |
|
I believe that the time is right for a personal name
registry, however this proposal appears to have limited financial capabilities.
Although there is a price point of $3.50 and conservative demand forecasts, there
seem to be very little in the way of details with regard as to what the operational
costs of the proposed registry will be. Various references are made that the
technical provision will be outsourced to the dotTV registry, which on the basis
of the information provided seems to be delivered at nil cost to the .nom registry.
All other costs are provided as a percentage of turnover, although this fails to
recognise that costs in the intial years are likely to be significantly higher than
later years (other than salary dropping from 15% to 10% and recruitment costs from
4% to 2% in the second year). Office costs are unlikely to be a fixed percentage
of turnover, neither are travel nor insurance nor professional fees - which incidentially
at 12% do seem very high. A funding requirement for $10,000,000 is identified,
although dotTV will be providing $2,000,000 of this from their current reserves although
there doesn't appear to be any indication that dotTV shareholders have agreed to
this, nor what share of DotNom they would own as a result of this investments. Finally,
a TLD tax of $1 per domain to ICANN has already been established as unacceptable
when ICANN is operating on a cost-recovery model.
|
| |
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