Re: [ga] FW: Fee for disproportionate deletes in proposed .biz contract

[Veni Markovski <veni@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear all,

let's try to stay focus on the problem with Danny using private 
e-mails in public communications.

veni

p.s. I hope this to be my last comment on the netiquette issues, 
which I've observed in the list.

RFC 1855, which was written in 1995, but you may see that I said 
something differently:

> The problem is, and it's not overlooking a detail, that there's a
> continuous trend in your e-mails which is not in accordance with the
> normal netiquette. If not the one from RFC 1855, then the one I've
> been learning since September 1990.

... and of course, since RFC 1855 was created in 1995, there are 5 
years of experience before that. And let's just randomly choose some 
portions from the RFC.



- If the message was a personal message to you and you are re-posting 
to a group, you should ask permission first.


I'd agree that Danny is right, and I am wrong, if he has asked Jeff 
recently, and others earlier, on re-posting their opinions to a 
group, to which they do not belong. Since we have not seen such a 
permission stated in the e-mail (which would have been a proper way 
to treat that), it's normal to asume such a persmission has not been granted.

So, one may be very familiar with the RFC 1855, but he or she can 
still make the mistake of thinking that I am discussing Danny's language:


At 03:53 AM 03.8.2006 '?.'  -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Veni and all former DNSO GA members or other interested
> stakeholders/users,
>
>   I do not see any language in Danny's previous post on this thread,
> as a violation of RFC 1855 or any reasonable view of "normal
> netiquette."
> As I am very familiar with RFC 1855, it would seem self evident and
> plainly obvious your "Learning" of same is likely/perhaps still in great
> need.