Re: [tf2-sg2] teleconf wednesday 10:30 am EDT?

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Works, although I'd prefer 1230 (two hours later).

On 2004-04-06 08:35:03 -0400, Steve Metalitz wrote:
> From: Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "'Jordyn A. Buchanan '" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> 	Steve Metalitz <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "''tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx' '" <tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> 	Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> 	''Tim Ruiz' ' <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:35:03 -0400 
> Subject: RE: [tf2-sg2] teleconf wednesday 10:30 am EDT?
> X-Spam-Level: 
> 
>  If this date and time work for Thomas and Tim, perhaps Glen could set up
> the call.
> 
> Steve Metalitz
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jordyn A. Buchanan
> To: Steve Metalitz
> Cc: 'tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; Thomas Roessler; 'Tim Ruiz'
> Sent: 4/5/2004 12:37 PM
> 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/
> >
> 

-- 
Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/