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

Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?

To: wg-c@dnso.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?
From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 22:56:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <02f401beed27$1fa27300$8dc72599@vorlon>; from Christopher Ambler on Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 10:19:49PM -0700
Mail-Followup-To: wg-c@dnso.org
References: <199908230045.UAA23318@manta.outremer.com> <19754.990822@dso.net> <02f401beed27$1fa27300$8dc72599@vorlon>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

On Sun, Aug 22, 1999 at 10:19:49PM -0700, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> Translation: be as strict as you want, but don't take away an
> invested business for no reason at all. A re-bid is a taking, as
> someone else can come in with the exact same physical
> investment, underbid, and take advantage of the previous
> registry's marketing.

Translation: don't spend too much on marketing.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?
  - From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>

References:
- Re: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?
  - From: John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>
- Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?
  - From: "William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>
- Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?
  - From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>
- Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?
  - From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] Trying to close on Question 1
Next by Date: Re: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?
Prev by thread: Re: Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?
Next by thread: RE: Re[2]: [wg-c] is this really the work we have before us?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread