Subject: RE: [NYCGA Internet] Domain Name Purchase
From: "Charles Lenchner" <>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 14:09:35 -0400
To: <>, "'ows_solutions'" <>

I think Christian was reading notes that I took.
For the record, my notes were crap.
That's not addressing Christian's points, which are valid. But the notes are
godawful, and I'm to blame.


-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Christian
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 2:07 PM
To: internet working group; ows_solutions
Subject: [NYCGA Internet] Domain Name Purchase


I want to say that I'm very disappointed in the way discussion around the
purchase of a domain name was handled. There was no mention of this in the
minutes from Sunday's meeting where they indicate that Jake expressed the
following: we are not adequately representing our selves online. I don't
care what this affinity group does. I care what we do. 
We aren't doing enough. Only two domain names exist that are relevant. or No matter what they want
to do, we should try to have one of them.

Jake also started the forum thread about having two sites, which never
mentioned buying a name. Those are the only recorded references I can find
to this except the proposal to the GA.

I can't usually come to the internet meetings, but I follow the google group
and the internet forum closely. How could a topic like this get no mention
on any of these venues.

How can Internet expect people to use the nice tools we have to include
interested parties if they can't lead by example?