RE: [tf2-sg2] conf call Wednesday 10:30 am EDT?

[Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>]

If this date and time work for Tim and Thomas, perhaps Glen could set up the
call.  

Steve Metalitz

-----Original Message-----
From: Jordyn A. Buchanan [mailto:jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 11:38 AM
To: Steve Metalitz
Cc: 'tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; Thomas Roessler; 'Tim Ruiz'
Subject: Re: [tf2-sg2] Proxy services overview

That works for me.

Jordyn

On Apr 5, 2004, at 11:47 AM, Steve Metalitz wrote:

> Tim, Thomas, Jordyn,
>
> In order to cure team 2's "laggard" status, would it be possible for 
> us to
> convene by conference call on Wednesday April 7 at 10:30 am EDT?
>
> Steve Metalitz
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 6:16 PM
> To: 'Thomas Roessler'
> Cc: tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [tf2-sg2] Proxy services overview
>
> Thanks Tom. I'll contact them yet this evening and try to have 
> something for
> you by tomorrow.
>
> Tim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Roessler
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 4:54 PM
> To: Tim Ruiz
> Cc: tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [tf2-sg2] Proxy services overview
>
> On 2004-03-29 16:10:35 -0600, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
>> At the very least, remove the paragraph that starts with "There
>> is anecdotal evidence about Go Daddy's practices from the
>> re-code.com incident..." and the associated links (including
>> Wendy's blog link) UNLESS you make a specific attempt to contact
>> Domains by Proxy, Inc. to respond AND include that response,
>> whatever it is, in full in this report.
>
> Referencing one side and including the other side's response
> verbatim isn't precisely balanced...  I'd suggest we move the
> incident outside the actual table, with language like this:
>
> 	There is little anecdotal evidence available on actual
> 	experiences made with proxy and similar services.  One
> 	incident which has received some attention is the
> 	<a>re-code.com</a> incident.  The domain name had been
> 	registered using Domains By Proxy; pseudonymity of the
> 	registrant was lifted upon receipt of a <a>cease and desist
> 	letter</a> from Wal-Mart. <a>Discussion in Wendy Seltzer's
> 	web log</a>; <a>discussion on nettime-l</a>; <a>response
> 	from Domains By Proxy</a>.
>
> "response from Domains By Proxy" would be a link to a statement from
> domains by proxy.  (If the statement of the basic facts isn't
> accurate, then that can and should of course be fixed in the main
> document.)
>
>> BTW, it is DBP practices you are referring to here, not Go
>> Daddy's.
>
> Noted.  Apologies.
>
>> It is DBP's response that you need if you are going to insist on
>> including the referenced incident.
>
> Can I leave it to you to quickly get that response?
>
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
>