From Nov 2017...

Tue Apr 3 06:54:39 UTC 2018

On 4/3/2018 2:37 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:

> What’s your point, though?  Are you talking about Quad9, or about GCA?
>
> If you’re talking about Quad9, you’re misleading people by implying that the quote you pulled from the Register piece pertains to Quad9, when it does not.
>
> If you’re talking about GCA, you’re misleading people by implying that what you’re saying about GCA somehow applies to Quad9.
>
> If you’re talking about Quad9, John Todd or I can address any questions.  If you’re talking about GCA, that’s between you and them.
>
>                                 -Bill

Bill and others:

The story from The Register was posted as it was...   the added words,
"to be clear" was intended to focus exchanges (if there was interest) in
relation to Privacy, The Register's reporting.  NOTHING more.  The fact
that you have somehow INTERPRETED here, that I have personally taken a
FOR, or AGAINST position to Quad9 operation, would be an error.  Since
when is it an offense, to merely share a publicly available URL?

More to the point of Privacy, you have shared some information here
regarding Quad9 operations that may have been beneficial to some, or
many.  It has been of benefit to me, and thanks for sharing that which
what you have.

All the best.