Subject: Re: [NYCGA Internet] Domain Name Purchase
From: Steven Schoeffler
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:09:28 -0400
CC: ows_solutions <>

I have not been part of this discussion, but I would like to make clear my disagreement that those are the only two relevant domain names. is also a basic part of the set.


On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Christian Smith-Socaris <> wrote:

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 donít care what this affinity group does. I care what we do. We arenít 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?