Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username:	user106
Date/Time:	Sun, November 5, 2000 at 11:03 PM GMT
Browser:	Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.5 using Windows 98
Score:	5
Subject:	The non-transferability provision is good
Message:
After reading through the TLD policies, I fully support the non-transferability provision advocated in this proposal.  Looks like this would eliminate the problem of cybersquatting and speculation - a very thoughtful idea. Best of luck with the .i proposal.

Message Thread:

• .i Application by Sarnoff Corporation — Moderator, October 7 @ 10:21 PM (30/38)
• .i TLD and Single Letters — B. Ferns, November 5 @ 8:41 PM (0/0)
• A completely outsourced solution - with some interesting costs — griffiths, November 5 @ 8:09 PM (0/0)
• Time for a people-centric TLD — skey, November 5 @ 7:42 PM (0/0)
• a badly needed idea!!! — spareek, November 5 @ 5:09 PM (0/0)
• .i proposal — manishie, November 5 @ 5:04 PM (0/0)
• Delighted by the .i submission from Sarnoff — rp@1sta.net, November 5 @ 9:57 AM (0/0)
• Support for this application and some suggestions — steve smith, November 4 @ 1:06 PM (0/0)
• A powerful structure for ubiquitous personal communications. — d_reininger, November 4 @ 12:30 AM (0/0)
• people centric TLD for connecting people - great concept — mott, November 3 @ 9:31 PM (0/0)
• MESSAGE — simonb, November 3 @ 6:42 PM (1/1)
• I can see the equality angle in dot i. — snowman, November 5 @ 10:18 PM (0/0)
• Support for .i tld — Wendy Suen, November 3 @ 5:57 PM (0/0)
• Great Concept! — phillipgb, November 3 @ 5:51 PM (1/1)
• The non-transferability provision is good — user106, November 5 @ 11:03 PM (0/0)
• Agreement that .i makes strategic sense for the Internet — JNathenson, November 3 @ 1:19 PM (1/1)
• support for .i tld application — Andy_Grein, November 5 @ 5:14 AM (0/0)
• .i proposal from sarnoff — jcienski, November 3 @ 1:08 PM (0/0)
• .i Proposal from Sarnoff Corporation. — jtodd, November 1 @ 6:09 PM (0/0)
• .i is good for the internet — Donovan, November 1 @ 12:18 AM (1/1)
• .i is a great idea — vachanip, November 3 @ 5:17 AM (0/0)
• Help solve the glut of domain names — pdesilva, November 1 @ 2:53 AM (0/0)
• New People centric TLD .i — ThomasGeorge, October 31 @ 8:54 PM (0/0)
• .geo plus .i = ? — adoyle, October 31 @ 8:23 PM (1/1)
• Sarnoff and SRI operate as independent entities — Proposal Team, November 5 @ 11:31 PM (0/0)
• TLD for individuals, an excellent idea. — AmitKapoor, October 30 @ 3:22 PM (0/0)
• .i could be my buddy. — vpincus, October 30 @ 2:40 PM (0/0)
• .i for the masses. — JosephMathew, October 26 @ 4:35 PM (0/0)
• Single character gTLDs are a bad idea — mikel5, October 26 @ 1:52 PM (1/3)
• What's  wrong with single-character TLDs? — jpolaski, October 27 @ 4:28 AM (1/2)
• I believe 1 character gTLDs will be hard to use — mikel5, October 27 @ 6:46 PM (1/1)
• .i single digit tld — vpincus, October 30 @ 3:02 PM (0/0)
• Sounds great, but what about user and community control ? — Dom, October 26 @ 8:28 AM (0/0)
• .i proposal — peniel, October 26 @ 12:04 AM (0/0)
• What values are envisioned to be associated with .i names? — McQuilWP, October 25 @ 8:40 PM (0/0)
• .i proposal works for the developing world — shyam, October 24 @ 6:53 AM (0/0)
• Bad idea — sjk, October 19 @ 7:44 AM (0/0)
• Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community — Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:09 PM (0/0)
• Great application and concept — huguesdb, October 16 @ 11:32 PM (0/0)

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy