Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	nschlegel
Date/Time:	Wed, October 25, 2000 at 3:48 PM GMT
Browser:	Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows NT 5.0
Score:	5
Subject:	.nom, .pro
Message:
In the era of communication, it would be extremely useful to have a domain name which allows private,individuals and families to have their own destination.By opposition to commercial domain names, this would be for the benefit of people..nom is recognized accross various cultures and would be the perfect domain for that purpose.And as it becomes available, by opposition, and as its complementary, .pro would also make sense for professionals.They go hand in hand. .com by default became a commercial domain name, .nom would be the perfect alternative for a non commercial domain name. Many thanks Nicole

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