Lisa Dusseault lisa.dusseault at gmail.com
Thu Dec 3 00:15:30 CET 2009

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Cary Karp <ck at nic.museum> wrote:

> > let operators (who are lamentably absent from IETF discussions by and
> > large) work out how to handle the additional diversity
> The operators of .CY and .GR have told us in official capacity that they
> want the final sigma to be PVALID, fully aware of the collateral effects
> that they will then need to deal with. It would be delusional to believe
> that the supportive action of the respective governments could not be
> mustered.
> Would someone who understands IETF process better than I do please
> explain why the discussion of that character needs to proceed any further?
> Even if this is a rhetorical question, I'll bite.  It's because the IETF
makes decisions by rough consensus and running code.  Rough consensus is
among informed participants as well as experts and people in certain
positions of authority or responsibility.  Running code certainly brings in
browser/client implementation history and current client implementation
concerns.  It is not only operators of the countries where those languages
are most spoken, that have collateral effects from the status of the
characters of those languages in IDNA.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20091202/5098ac2f/attachment.htm 

More information about the Idna-update mailing list