I think this list may be a very good choice of where to construct such a response. This is certainly an issue requiring coordination, and, the results of this PR battle definitely have strong operational ramifications. As such, I believe it EXACTLY fits the charter of this list, while, being a bit outside it's traditional subject matter.
Owen
--On Monday, October 6, 2003 23:46 -0700 Will Yardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:24:08PM -0700, Steve Feldman wrote:On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 11:41:14PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> The one that pisses me off more is > > http://news.com.com/2100-1038_3-5087139.html?tag=nefd_top
From the bottom of those CNET articles: Contact us: http://news.com.com/2040-1096_3-0.html
Couldn't hurt to try...
Also, Declan's articles on Sept. 16 was most definitely not a Verisign press release, see: http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5077530.html?tag=st_rn
Maybe he would be willing to help draft (or at least edit) a response from the community at large. I do agree with other posters that a response is in order, and I think it's important that it's concise, reasonable, well written, and focuses on the main issues at hand. While this list is not the place to create such a response, I imagine someone could throw together an open list to create one.
It's true that the majority of the people on this list are not PR or marketing people, and that's why it's important that we respond, and respond in a way that's easy for the general public to understand.
It might also be a good idea to try to get some opinions from non-technical people; most of the non-technical people I've spoken to also find SiteFinder annoying and / or confusing.
-- "Since when is skepticism un-American? Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same..." (Sleater-Kinney - "Combat Rock")
