I can imagine a new.net handout that would be political, not commercial.
Give it a try. According to ICANN, it's free.
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> The fact is that ICANN has turned down at least one potential sponsor
> New.net, which would completely remove their ability to share their
> perspecti
The web site was recently changed. It didn't say that originally.
Cf. http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=450
On 10 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A short trip to ICANN's website clears it up.
>
> http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/
>
> Under "Sponsorship Opportunities", they emphasize t
> Ob. swipe: If you enter "icann.org" in your browser, you get
> an error. You have to enter "www.icann.org". Geniuses.
> Bloody, ironic, geniuses.
That's bad how?
That they haven't confused hosts and domains doesn't make them bad does
it? That you can in certain circumstances take the liber
On 10 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A short trip to ICANN's website clears it up.
>
> http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/
>
> Under "Sponsorship Opportunities", they emphasize the words "commercial
>materials" in their request for a $5k fee. Political materials would certainly be
>permissible.
At 11/10/01 04:23 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>A short trip to ICANN's website clears it up.
>
>http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/
>
>Under "Sponsorship Opportunities", they emphasize the words
>"commercial materials" in their request for a $5k fee. Political
>materials would certainly be permissi
A short trip to ICANN's website clears it up.
http://www.icann.org/mdr2001/
Under "Sponsorship Opportunities", they emphasize the words "commercial
materials" in their request for a $5k fee. Political materials would certainly be
permissible.
Fact is better than rumor when propagandizing, ki
