Re: [ga] Archives of VeriSign's Domain Policy Mailing List

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

This is a non issue as the GA has members with the archives.

We have a place to store them.

This is water under the bridge and/or an old scar that bares no
resemblance of helping produce positive effects.

Let us can the old hatred crap and move forward.

We need to focus on accessibility, reliability and security not on what you
did
to me last year.

We need all of you to focus on Transfers and Deletions so that we get
stockholder and consumer confidence back up to a good level.  The EU is here
and
and if we keep looking back at past battles they will pass us by, by looking

and acting forward.  VRSNs' stock is down and prices for domain names are
down because we can't get our hi-tek acts together.

Our dotORG and our Structure TFs have rendered some results - those would be

helpful to talk about.

Come on we need more out of you fine gentlemen.

Sincerely,
Eric

"Gomes, Chuck" wrote:

> I personally made that fact known but I will not argue with either of
> you about it.
>
> Chuck
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 4:41 AM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > Cc: [ga]; Brian O'Shaughnessy, Verisign
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Archives of VeriSign's Domain Policy Mailing List
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 14:47:59 -0800, William X Walsh wrote:
> > > Tuesday, Tuesday, January 08, 2002, 12:46:14 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > >
> > > > Patrick,
> > >
> > > > We made it very clear that the decision made with regard
> > to the Domain
> > > > Policy List was made for legal reasons.  You may disagree with our
> > > > counsel but we pay them to protect us so we listen to
> > them when they
> > > > speak.  If that is FUD, so be it.  I call that sound
> > business practice.
> > >
> > > Ah, but no, Verisign never made that clear.  As a matter of fact,
> > > Verisign REPEATEDLY denied, to both us and to the press, that legal
> > > issues had anything to do with the closure of that list,
> > and insisted
> > > it was a coincidence.
> >
> > Hi Chuck
> >
> > I think I must agree with William X. Walsh here.  In fact I
> > already posted the
> > notification from Tom Newell dated Tue, 24 May 0101 11:13:49
> > -0400.  This
> > said:
> >
> > > This list will be closed effective immediately.  When
> > > we started the list many years ago, there were no lists
> > > specifically focusing on domain policy issues.  Today
> > > there are a wide range of public lists that address
> > > this topic.
> >
> > There is no indication here that the list was closed for
> > legal reasons.
> >
> > However, I'm afraid you completely missed the point.  I was
> > not referring to
> > the closure of the list as "misinformational" but to Tom's
> > last paragraph
> > which said:
> >
> > > Please refer all queries to Brian O'Shaughnessy, of
> > > VeriSign's Corporate Communications department at
> > > boshaughnessy@verisign.com.
> >
> > I did this, Chuck, and got no reply.  Why was that?
> >
> > Why say "refer all queries to Brian O'Shaughnessy" when you
> > apparently have no
> > intention of replying to those queries.  In fact I can give
> > similar examples
> > of non-responses from other VeriSign officers.  And that's
> > without even
> > talking about VeriSign's "expired names" policies.
> >
> > In fact, my query went to the heart of the most fundamental
> > aspect of a
> > mailing list viz. could VeriSign allow us to have access to
> > the mailing list
> > archives?
> >
> > With or without the contentious emails.
> >
> > Best regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
> >

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html