Changing the values of domain names and the need for mapping

[Patrik Fältström]

I have got private mail that show that this email of mine can be  
misunderstood.

Remember that english is not my first language... ;-)

Now, what I wanted to say was both explain that *I* think we have  
discussed this enough and come to a consensus. I also explained how my  
position has moved during the life of this wg.

Finally, I am asking us to please resolve the fact that obviously not  
everyone do believe we have consensus. Because we can not reopen this  
issue yet again 9-13 months from now.

I am not disputing the fact I see people still disagreeing whether we  
have consensus or not. I am just not agreeing with that view. And  
wanted people to know.

    Patrik

On 21 feb 2009, at 07.50, Patrik Fältström wrote:

> On 20 feb 2009, at 20.59, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> That is certainly a change in behaviour, and one that opens the
>> possibility for abuse in a way that the other examples didn't  
>> (because
>> those other characters were not mapped to something else by  
>> protocol).
>
> Absolutely, but it is something we already have discussed many times  
> on this mailing list, and elsewhere, and the conclusion has always  
> been that "it is worth taking this step". There have always been  
> people against it, and they have always popped up over and over  
> again. We need to have this horse buried even deeper obviously.  
> "Please look in the archives" I think is a term used in the IETF,  
> although not always in a friendly manner.
>
> I am one of the persons that on this mailing list in the first round  
> of discussions was AGAINST this change, but after listening to the  
> people that run registries and the ones that use the language that  
> use this character (and in some cases those people are the same),  
> and THEY strongly wanted this change, I changed my mind. I since  
> then (several years ago now) understand to some degree both the good  
> and bad things, and think the people that wanted the change all  
> along where correct.
>
> Can we move on please?
>
>    Patrik
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/attachments/20090221/6f004a60/attachment.pgp