[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]

Subject: UKNM: RE: Tuvalu
From: John Braithwaite
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 16:30:36 GMT

> John, firstly they aren't the poorest country on the Earth.
> Perhaps not. But they're damned close.

er. not that close really.

>> Secondly they
>> are not getting their GDP increased by that amount, they got a lump sum
>> (again, not a bright move).
>$4m minimum, every year for ten years. Or
>over $100 per capita per year. Forty million
>dollars for a place with a GDP of $7.8m.
>"Not a bright move"? Fool.

It is a lump sum - spread over a period of time. What happens after ten
years? They are fools - did the company who are marketing the '.tv' domain
names expect to make a loss? I don't think they will. If business.tv is
going for $1m on it's own, it may not be too difficult to work out that the
company running this thing is going to make far more than $40m over ten

They are being taken advantage of. If they had received good advice they
could have done all of this themselves - made more money and, more
importantly - controlled the .tv domains and levered their own home-grown

>> Thirdly, they have sold out their
>> right to have
>> a country-specific domain name for companies that actually work there,
>> opting out of that part of the digital economy.
>You mean Tuvalan web companies (I'll bet
>there are loads) are forbidden from paying
>$50 to their national registrar and getting
>a domain?
>And the government's deal with dotTV is
>in perpituity instead of a 10-year lease?
>No, thought not.

Y'see John, there are always two perspectives. I see this as inhibiting the
companies (and government) of Tuvalu to use the added advantage of the .tv
domains. Hey - I paid �9.99 for a .co.uk domain the other day and this won't
incrementally increase over a period of time. Also, although the Tuvalu
government have leased this thing - how on earth are they going to have the
knowledge-base and expertise in ten years' time to run this (see UK National
Lottery farce for details)? They won't. If it is successful then they may
have a case for increasing the fee - but they may not have much choice in
the matter.

Personally, I see it as 'taking advantage of' rather than 'giving value to'.
They have been seduced by the 'zeroes' without being able to see the value.
It's not far away from what we used to do with cotton to the third world and
that is why I think it is a mistake.

[Sam says: thanks Johns, let's come back to this in a few months and see how
they're still doing.]

looking for useful books about the new media biz?
check out the UKNM books page for some suggestions:
Email suggestions to: helpatchinwag [dot] com
To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to
http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or helpatchinwag [dot] com

[Previous] [Next] - [Index] [Thread Index] - [Next in Thread] [Previous in Thread]