[ga] Do they have any market value yet?

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>]

From: "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw>
"Do they have any market value yet?"
====

Stay tuned....

http://www.ActiveWorlds.com
http://www.SecondLife.com
http://www.OuterWorlds.com
http://www.There.com

The InterNAT (North American Transport) routes around censorship and uneducated populations...

Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw>
To: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@Ameritech.Net>
Cc: <africann@lists.gh>; <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....


> 
> On 17 Jun 2003 at 19:55, Jim Fleming <JimFleming@ameritech.net> wrote:
> 
> > http://www.Chicago.IL
> > http://www.LosAngeles.CA
> > http://www.Delmar.DE
> 
> I guess these must be based on tribal names.
> 
> Do they have any market value yet?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Paulos
> ======================
> Dr Paulos B Nyirenda
> .mw ccTLD
> 
> ___________________________________________________________
> Malawi has a travel ban that covers Canada in June 03 due to SARS
> 
> 
> > From: <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
> > > My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
> > ====
> > 
> > You might want to start with a list of TLDs that you consider to be countries, as
> > opposed to tribal names. Now that all of the legacy 2-letter TLDs have been picked
> > over for their marketing value, you might find that the list of so-called ccTLDs is
> > very small. Couple that with the growth of the InterNAT (North American Transport),
> > and you might find the list gets smaller. At some point, small lists and narrow minds
> > fade away.
> > 
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/problem-statement/2003-June/002420.html
> > Bob Braden braden at ISI.EDU 
> > Mon Jun 16 14:33:11 CEST 2003 
> > "Jon came to the conclusion that having a primary numbering space that
> > is mult-dimensional is bound to lead to confusion."
> > ====
> > 
> > http://www.Chicago.IL
> > http://www.LosAngeles.CA
> > http://www.Delmar.DE
> > 
> > Jim Fleming
> > http://www.IPv8.info
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
> > To: <paulos@sdnp.org.mw>; "Stephan Welzel/Denic" <welzel@denic.de>
> > Cc: <africann@lists.gh>; <cctld-discuss@wwtld.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:40 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re: [cctld-discuss] Re: Revised Draft ICANN ccNSO Bylaws ....
> > 
> > 
> > > On 17 Jun 2003 at 13:52, Stephan Welzel/Denic wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Paulos,
> > > > 
> > > > On 17.06.2003 12:07 "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" <paulos@sdnp.org.mw> wrote: >
> > > > > Without a defined scope, the development of a scope for the ccNSO
> > > > will be > outside the > scope of the new ccNSO. > > So how or under
> > > > what mandate will the scope of the ccNSO be developed?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Good point, Paulos.
> > > Stephan said
> > > > ;) I guess the worse problem is that this way the ccSO
> > > > might end up with a way broader scope than originally
> > > > envisaged...
> > > >
> > > I see a broader scope itself as advantageous -a broader scope simply 
> > > increases the power of the SO, as any policy made within the scope must 
> > > be carried out by the Board. If its not in the scope, then the Board can 
> > > ignore the SO.
> > > 
> > > But to return to this point, its a common enough "bootstrapping" or "start-
> > > up" problem. It could be avoided by a tight definition, but, in the absence 
> > > of that, it means that the Policy Recommendation from the SO on Scope 
> > > (after a PDP )  does not need to be adopted by the Board, which could 
> > > substitue its own definition of scope for the SO....
> > > 
> > > 
> > > My much preffered option is for a clearly defined scope rfom the outset.
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > 
> > > .Peter Dengate Thrush
> > > Senior Vice Chair, 
> > > APTLD
> > > 
> > > Office  64 4 499 8959
> > > Mobile 64 21 499 888
> > > Fax     64 4 4710672
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html