Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
| Username: |
Skull |
| Date/Time: |
Thu, November 2, 2000 at 2:13 AM GMT |
| Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows NT 5.0 |
| Score: |
5 |
| Subject: |
.nom applications |
Message: |
|
|
Carla Looking at the different applications and the posts on this forum I feel
that there is a great need for the .nom gTLD. ICANN should come up with the
best selling mechanism for the new gTLDs by themselves while only considering applications
from players who have an established track record in selling domains. There is
a lot of confusion as per the business model that should be
employed. I think
that is not very important at that stage. The right answer to that question will
appear in time. Also I think the dotNOm consortium is very compelling indeed.
|
|
|
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)
- 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)
- separation of commercial and pesonal domains — Ted Hanks, November 5 @ 9:13 PM (1/2)
- Accounting discrepancies — hunter, November 5 @ 4:09 AM (1/1)
- 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)
- .NOM sounds too much like .COM — julie, November 4 @ 4:14 AM (1/3)
- 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)
- .NOM can be great — alireza, November 3 @ 8:57 PM (0/0)
- Same problem... — PHXbird, November 3 @ 5:50 PM (1/2)
- .nom — jedrink24, November 3 @ 5:34 PM (1/2)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- .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)
- .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