[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?

To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>, "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>, "Javier SOLA" <javier@aui.es>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 22:39:56 -0700
Cc: <wg-c@dnso.org>
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <006201bee2ed$6b4d30e0$f78ad0d8@storm3.sympatico.ca>
Reply-To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

> Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 1999 10:02 PM

> In my mind, if the registry and the TLD are inextricably
> linked, then we
> actually stand to lose TLDs over time. Is it such a bad thing
> to request
> such a separation?

No, such a request is not such a bad thing. However, demanding it as the
only model is, IMHO. I do not agree that it is a boolean choice.

References:
- Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?
  - From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@ebarn.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] "Public" resources
Next by Date: RE: Re[4]: [wg-c] Eureka?
Prev by thread: Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] Eureka?
Next by thread: Re: [wg-c] Eureka?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread