Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
| Username: |
Hastings |
| Date/Time: |
Mon, November 6, 2000 at 12:33 AM GMT |
| Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows NT 5.0 |
| Score: |
5 |
| Subject: |
registrar function |
Message: |
|
|
John, Does not the dotNom application suggest that all ICANN accredited would be
welcome to register .nom names? Is that true for most applications? I for one cannot
see any of the applicants not have the ICANN accredited distribution channel sell
the new domains. It sounds like all the different applications are much the same.
It looks like money on the table for the winner, but not much. I would be surprised
to see another Network Solutions rise from the ashes of this process. Let me take
that back! Nothing would surprise me looking at the application process.....
|
|
|
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