Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
| Username: |
Fred Crampe |
| Date/Time: |
Sun, November 5, 2000 at 9:44 PM GMT |
| Browser: |
Netscape Communicator V4.76 using Windows NT 5.0 |
| Score: |
5 |
| Subject: |
some smart solution! |
Message: |
|
|
Dear Mr Smith With all respect I have to admit that I find the .i solution to be
rather laughable! Some great analysis your team must have done to come up with such
a brilliant solution. WHat makes you think that the internet population is not going
to decide for it self how it wants this problem dealt with. People will some up with
their own numbers, and their owe solutions to this problem.
With all fairness
.i seems to be no more different than .nom The value is in separating commercial
domains from personal ones. I do not doubt the need for .nom or .i
|
|
|
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)
- 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)
- 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