Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
| Username: |
Ted Hanks |
| Date/Time: |
Sun, November 5, 2000 at 10:06 PM GMT |
| Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows NT 5.0 |
| Score: |
5 |
| Subject: |
costs |
Message: |
|
|
Dear John I would point to the fact that dotTV already has the infrastructure in
place. The capital expenditures that you suggest should not be as significant as
they would have been for a *first time* registry. I would think the dotTv share
holders- idealab, the management itself and Tuvalu would find it relatively easy
to collaborate on this issue. Is not the company within the idealab incubator even
today? It seems logical that the financial responcibility of their proposal is well
understood by all concerned. -Ted Hanks
|
|
|
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