.nom Application by the dotNOM Consortium

Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Moderator

Date/Time: Sat, October 7, 2000 at 10:11 PM GMT

Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.7 using Windows 98

Score: 5

Subject: .nom Application by the dotNOM Consortium

Message:

This thread is intended for comments about the application for the TLD ".nom" submitted by The dotNOM Consortium. Non-confidential portions of that application may be viewed by clicking on "Application Materials" below. To make a comment, fill in the "Post a Reply" form at the bottom of this web page.

Link: Application Materials

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