<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Judy,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">This is a tremendous amount of churn
and e-mail for a $50 donation ! </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The overhead of PayPal on me as a donor
is far lower and reliability far higher than with Network for Good and
at this point I am not inclined to use the Network for Good service again.
I suspect that I am more patient than many a person who has experience
with online commerce, but the Network for Good model for e-commerce and
its web site is dated and one that I am not inclined to use again nor recommend
to others. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">I could not get through on the number
on the web site, not good for an online broker of donations ! Now that
each donation made through Network for Good explicitly cites costs and
asks for reimbursement HIGHER than PayPal costs, I see very little reason
to use the service. I see promises made to improve a service simply to
meet the standards of existing, competing services but at higher costs.
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Here is a summary of the fundamental
differences of common e-donation mechanisms available to me, right now
for use with RTPnet (and others):</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Service
Ease of Use Ease of Use Reliability
Availability Direct Cost Cost
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">
(Donor)
(Recipient)
Deposit donor
recipient</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">PayPal
High High
High High
Yes Zero Low
(zero to indiv)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Network for Good
Moderate
High Low
Moderate ? High
Low</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Local bank/CU ebanking Moderate
High High
High Yes
Med Med</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">USPS.gov
High High
High High
Yes Med
Low (+labor)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Courier New">Writing a check & mail Low
Moderate Moderate
High No
Low Low (+labor)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Assumptions:</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- not a one-time donation, evaluation
above changes if e-services are used only once</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- recipient has some familiarity with
at least one e-banking/commerce service</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- donor has some familiarity with at
least one e-banking/commerce service</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Net for consumer: </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- PayPal incurs no extra charges to
donor, no charges to use service</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Local bank/Credit Union e-banking
has fees borne by user (donor) AND recipient (a few are now making e-banking
"free" with min accounts >$1k)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">- Network for Good uses a dated transaction
model that incurs higher costs. Similar to the discussion about assessing
RTPnet.org's value to its community, Network for Good is in the same boat
where technology and availability of lower cost, competing services may
soon lead to Network for Good's demise - at least in its current form.
PipeVine's demise is indicative of what will likely happen to Network for
Good if it doesn't partner with others and change models.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Cheers & 73s de Mark W4CHL<br>
<br>
Mark R. Smith w4chl@amsat.org<br>
Chapel Hill NC USA http://rtpnet.org/parc<br>
</font>