<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [tf2-sg2] teleconf wednesday 10:30 am EDT?
- To: "'Steve Metalitz'" <metalitz@xxxxxxxx>, "'Jordyn A. Buchanan '" <jordyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [tf2-sg2] teleconf wednesday 10:30 am EDT?
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 08:04:49 -0500
- Cc: <tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Thomas Roessler'" <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <ED4EC3C54C514942B84B686CDEC7FC05BA9A76@smsvr2.local.iipa.com>
- Sender: owner-tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Works for me.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Metalitz [mailto:metalitz@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 6:35 AM
To: 'Jordyn A. Buchanan '; Steve Metalitz
Cc: ''tf2-sg2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx' '; Thomas Roessler; ''Tim Ruiz' '
Subject: RE: [tf2-sg2] teleconf wednesday 10:30 am EDT?
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/
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|