NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Non-Commercial User Constituency <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Rafik Dammak <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:34:30 -0500
Reply-To:
Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
> - to show that cost for running registry regarding appropriate requirement
> is really low and don't correspond to what Kurt is arguing as cost-recovery
> etc

The issue is that the recovery cost as the based for the application
fee it is not based on whatever the cost of running the registry is,
perhaps Kurt's argument that $185K compared to the cost of running a
registry is a minimal amount is not 100% correct.

As far as I know the recovery cost is based on the costs associated
with the evaluation of a string application for a new gTLD and as I
mentioned before the bill does not stop at $185K, if you have to go to
an extended evaluation or dispute you may have to add another
$50-$150K to the final tab.

Regards
Jorge

ATOM RSS1 RSS2