I couldn't say exactly how the registrations were performed - just that the
'registratants' payed a lot of money and travelled along way to get the
names.
They might well have been ripped off, who knows?
Lee Hodgson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Daminato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fagyal Csongor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Lee Hodgson - DomainGuideBook.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 11:00 PM
Subject: RE: dotVC coming our way?
> We have to determine under what conditions these domains were 'promised'
> before we allow them to be fully registered. Since there are some
> registrars (non-sanctioned) that are offering these names we may not even
be
> given records of some previous registrations and the respective registrant
> information associated therein.
>
> Potential ideas being whisked around is a 're-registration' period for the
> few holders that previously purchased domains - and that we have records
of.
>
> --
>
> Charles Daminato
> Tucows Product Manager (ccTLDs)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to
> time that nothing worth knowing can be taught.
>
> - Oscar Wilde
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Swerve
> Sent: November 28, 2000 10:40 AM
> To: Fagyal Csongor; Lee Hodgson - DomainGuideBook.com; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: dotVC coming our way?
>
>
> I am quite confident that domains already registered will be honoured.
>
> swerve
>
> > From: "Fagyal Csongor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Organization: CO
> > Reply-To: "Fagyal Csongor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:45:07 +0100
> > To: "Lee Hodgson - DomainGuideBook.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: dotVC coming our way?
> >
> >> I know domain speculators that have been registering .VC names for many
> >> months. Will these still be valid?
> > Why wouldn't they be? I mean .VC is a valid ccTLD which resolves - or am
I
> > mistaken?
> >
> > - Cs.
> >
> >
>
>
