Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
| Username: |
noisy |
| Date/Time: |
Wed, November 1, 2000 at 5:41 PM GMT |
| Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98 |
| Score: |
5 |
| Subject: |
telnic application |
Message: |
|
I work in the VoIP industry and I do believe that not only does .tel make perfect
sense as it is the future of telecomunications but also that Telnic have put together
the best proposal. Even Ericsson have offered them support if they succeed in this
endeavour.
|
|
|
Message Thread:
- .tel Application by Telnic Limited — Moderator, October 7 @ 10:04 PM (15/16)
- comments — gbailey, December 12 @ 6:24 PM (0/0)
- Let's go forward — MSisson, November 6 @ 12:02 AM (0/0)
- I stringly OPPOSE the ".tel" concept — jefsey, November 4 @ 7:39 PM (0/0)
- .TEL — Garf, November 3 @ 1:02 PM (0/0)
- .Tel — wolfy, November 3 @ 9:44 AM (0/0)
- .tel by telnic — Andrew Hossain, November 3 @ 1:04 AM (0/0)
- Services vs. device addressing — Serge, November 2 @ 9:13 PM (0/0)
- Flexibility — steve smith, November 2 @ 11:09 AM (0/0)
- a real difference — spencer, November 2 @ 10:27 AM (0/0)
- Seems Reasonable — graftonw, November 2 @ 8:39 AM (0/0)
- Both impractical and completely out of ICANN’s jurisdiction — MrTLD, November 2 @ 1:47 AM (0/0)
- After reading all three proposals..... — R.Jackson, November 1 @ 10:49 PM (0/0)
- telnic application — noisy, November 1 @ 5:41 PM (0/0)
- Great Idea — RobTaylor, October 26 @ 9:57 AM (1/1)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community — Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:41 PM (0/0)
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy