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

RE: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs

To: Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>, wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs
From: Josh Elliott <jelliott@tucows.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 12:35:25 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003181045490.17095-100000@loki.ar.com>
Reply-to: jelliott@tucows.com
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

see uwhois.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Rick
> H Wesson
> Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2000 10:48 AM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know some folks don't like how the whois got distributed when NSI
> Registry went into "shaired" mode.
> 
> How do folks propose the whois service to work with additional 
> registraies 
> running new gTLDs.
> 
> 
> -rick
> 
>

References:
- [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs
  - From: Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not in 10-23 report
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] IPv6
Prev by thread: RE: [wg-c] whois - opperational issues && new gTLDs
Next by thread: RE: [wg-c] Re: your mail
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread