Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
| Username: |
Fred Crampe |
| Date/Time: |
Sun, November 5, 2000 at 9:48 PM GMT |
| Browser: |
Netscape Communicator V4.76 using Windows NT 5.0 |
| Score: |
5 |
| Subject: |
you're outdoing youself! |
Message: |
|
|
Dear Mr Smith Again you are outdoing yourself! I would suggest that you read into
the difference between public and private companies! I doubt dotTV is under any obligation
to come running to soothe your doubts.
They must surely have explained their finances
to ICANN, as did every one else. If some one asked me to go about publishing internal
information on public discussion boards- then I would laugh at the suggestion.
|
|
|
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)
- you're outdoing youself! — Fred Crampe, November 5 @ 9:48 PM (0/0)
- 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