Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	J.Green
Date/Time:	Mon, November 6, 2000 at 12:08 AM GMT
Browser:	Netscape Communicator V4.76 using Windows NT 5.0
Score:	5
Subject:	ENd Price
Message:
Erica, You will notice in section D13.2.2.  (Revenue Model) That this question is not valid as the application states- "It is anticipated that virtually all DNC’s income will be revenue received from its registrar relationships in the form of standard fixed fees.  DNC does not intend to control the end prices which registrars charge to their customers".         So its a similar situation as NSI. The dotNom Consortium will allow each registrar to charge what they want. No Price control. If you wanna eat the $3.50 cost per domain then give it away free if you wish. Hope this helps. John

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)
• ENd Price — J.Green, November 6 @ 12:08 AM (1/7)
• Thanks John — Hastings, November 6 @ 12:14 AM (1/6)
• on the $3.50 — J.Green, November 6 @ 12:18 AM (1/5)
• DNS servers — Hastings, November 6 @ 12:21 AM (1/4)
• don't know — J.Green, November 6 @ 12:24 AM (1/3)
• registrar function — Hastings, November 6 @ 12:33 AM (1/2)
• money on the table! — J.Green, November 6 @ 12:37 AM (1/1)
• projections — Hastings, November 6 @ 12:44 AM (0/0)
• 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)
• to griffiths — Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 10:14 PM (0/0)
• costs — Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 10:06 PM (0/0)
• separation of commercial and pesonal domains — Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 9:13 PM (1/2)
• separation of communication & commerce — Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 9:29 PM (1/1)
• Fred-in reply to your last post — Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 9:59 PM (0/0)
• Accounting discrepancies — hunter, November 5 @ 4:09 AM (1/1)
• you're outdoing youself! — Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 9:48 PM (0/0)
• 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)
• some smart solution! — Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 9:44 PM (0/0)
• .NOM  sounds too much like .COM — julie, November 4 @ 4:14 AM (1/3)
• RE: .NOM  sounds too much like .COM — faure, November 5 @ 12:38 AM (1/2)
• confusion over the .nom — Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 9:36 PM (1/1)
• to Ted Hanks — Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 9:51 PM (0/0)
• 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)
• disclosure — Ted Hanks, November 4 @ 2:23 AM (0/0)
• .NOM can be great — alireza, November 3 @ 8:57 PM (0/0)
• Same problem... — PHXbird, November 3 @ 5:50 PM (1/2)
• to PHXbird — phil browning, November 3 @ 7:07 PM (1/1)
• Exactly my point! — PHXbird, November 4 @ 5:55 PM (0/0)
• .nom — jedrink24, November 3 @ 5:34 PM (1/2)
• auctions the way to go — fredHanks, November 4 @ 2:11 AM (1/1)
• no auctions please — Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 10:30 PM (0/0)
• 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)
• easy, tex — bldigrn, November 3 @ 3:06 AM (2/2)
• warm hearts etc — J.Green, November 6 @ 12:39 AM (0/0)
• conflict of interest? — fredHanks, November 4 @ 2:15 AM (0/0)
• 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? — SamSingh, November 2 @ 8:39 PM (0/0)
• .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)
• but does the internet user care? — Ted Hanks, November 4 @ 2:27 AM (0/0)
• The internet should be a utility — mayor, November 1 @ 6:02 AM (2/6)
• sweet spot for .nom price — Jim Chen, November 2 @ 8:56 PM (1/1)
• but how? — phil browning, November 2 @ 10:16 PM (0/0)
• .nom- a promising proposal (Reply to Mayor's post) — Phil Browning, November 1 @ 11:48 PM (1/3)
• like the dotNOM application — Matt Simons, November 2 @ 12:12 AM (1/2)
• reply to Matt — Carla, November 2 @ 1:57 AM (1/1)
• .nom applications — Skull, November 2 @ 2:13 AM (0/0)
• 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)
• Any ideas? — Hastings, November 6 @ 12:53 AM (0/0)
• .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)
• registry price — Phil Browning, November 2 @ 6:48 PM (1/1)
• $3.50 cost vs. NSI's $6 — bldigrn, November 2 @ 7:19 PM (0/0)
• .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