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

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Yes, that is a much more important issue than ICANN getting rid of price controls or addressing the issues involving the grace period and deleted domains. See the topic of the email for netiquette Veni. If you wish to discuss reporting of content from other users and netiquette can you kindly start a new thread and stay on THIS topic?

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Veni Markovski 
  To: Jeff Williams ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Cc: Veni Markovski ; icann board address 
  Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 5:23 AM
  Subject: Re: [ga] FW: Fee for disproportionate deletes in proposed .biz contract


  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.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/406 - Release Date: 8/2/06