With the current definition of Domain Name, these should be covered by our
membership rules, I believe.
>From: Onno Hovers <onno@surfer.xs4all.nl>
>Subject: [IFWP] re:refreshing contact details
>
>In article <19990629093857.ZMPK3789.mta1-rme@[210.55.150.62]> Joop
Teernstra wrote:
>> Onno Hovers wrote:
>>>
>> The .nl registry is one that needs indeed some checking. I recently
>> received a net- article which bitterly complained about the total
>> arbitrariness with which the Dutch registry allows and disallows second
>> level domain names.
>
>Yep, that is another point of contention, the 'we do not give out the good
>domains' policy of domain-registry.nl. But AFAIK domain-registry.nl intends
>to change that policy.
>
>> But according to the IDNO membership criteria, it will be hard to recruit
>> members there. No individual domains. Only individuals that own small
>> companies with DN's could be members.
>> And individuals who register .com's, which should be many.
>
>Individuals who want a SLD either register a with internic, or pay
>the incorporation fee of the Chamber of Commerce. But that incorporation
>fee is getting higher, and there are certain tax risks.
>And many ISPs (like xs4all.nl, demon.nl, cistron.nl) offer third-level
>domains, which are very popular.
>
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
-
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/