Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
Username: |
PinkFish |
Date/Time: |
Fri, November 3, 2000 at 2:20 AM GMT |
Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows NT 5.0 |
Score: |
5 |
Subject: |
dot whatever |
Message: |
|
I hope this post finds all you people in the best of health. I've been an eager follower
of the gTLD race. Got to admit it looks like money in the bank for the company that
gets the nod. I personally don't buy the idea that the internet population is going
to go for third level domain names at all. There's too many ccTLDs out there which
are lying unused. ICANN should make sure they do not flood the market with many
more domain names that destroy the value of having a domain. If the same thing that
happened to hotmail happens with personal domains then imagine millions of unused
domains acquired by people and never used. I hate to blow sun shine up any one's
ass but the dotnom consortium sounds like a winning team to me. They have what it
takes to build a globally scalable infrastructure around the gTLDs they would market. CORE
also looks like a good option. But 18 registrar's ? How many cooks will it take to
spoil this broth?
|
| |
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