Bruce,
Opensrs is Not a "non-for-profit" organization!
(The word Opensrs does sound like a touchy feely open .org, but that's
another story.)
Bruce,
I really think you should be doing more research before you make your claims
to this list. Perhaps start an off list dialogue with an opensrs RSP
relations person. As i suggested last week, i Really think Opensrs needs an
RSP rep. who's part/time full time job is dealing with the myriad of RSP's
that are on this list. My guess is Scott/Ross/Charles/RobertR don't have
the time for this type of job, but this person's effort could save alot of
time and stress for all of us.
\
And no, i am not interested in the job.
swerve
> From: "Bruce P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Organization: .
> Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:49:44 +0800
> To: "William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Afternic/RCOM: Tucows stance on secondary market speculation
>
>
>
> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
>>
>> Hello Bruce,
>>
>> Monday, September 18, 2000, 8:25:36 AM, you wrote:
>>> Tucows must make it easy and cheap for small companies to become
>>> registrars, USD8 per domain is good enough and Tucows still gets a USD2
>>> revenue while USD6 goes to the NSI Registry.
>>
>> You are joking here, right?
>>
>
> Wrong! I am not joking.
>
>> Did you take into account ICANN's fees? Did you take into account the
>> cost of providing the service and development that you mention? Who
>> are you to tell OpenSRS how much revenue is "good enough" for them
>> when you know nothing about how much it costs to keep it all running?
>>
>
> I did take into account ICANN accreditation fees. RSPs could sponsor the
> $5000 accreditation fees, so assuming they have 100 RSPs, each would pay
> yearly $50.
>
> RSPs could sponsor the development costs together, the open srs server
> development, and also the client development.
>
> Open SRS is a non-for-profit effort, thus their revenue should be
> minimum
> if any. Tucows is earning millions through their infamous "for-profit"
> Domain Direct. And, yes I know alot about their running costs. I advice
> you to see www.ICANN.org for more info.
>
> Thank you,
> Bruce
>
