That's perfectly reasonable; I just wanted to bring this information to the working group, given that the LTRU working group was faced with a similar situation.<br><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 21:48, Vint Cerf <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vint@google.com">vint@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="">Mark,<div><br></div><div>what ever speculation there may be, my policy is not to take an adverse action unless a particular email address becomes a source of disruption that interferes with progress, wastes people's time, moves the discussion into unhelpful channels. So far, LB has not said anything that would merit such an action in my view. If that changes, I will consider the same action I have taken with Mr. Morfin.</div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>v</div></font><div><div class="im"><br><div> <span style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><div>
<div><br>Vint Cerf</div><div>Google</div><div>1818 Library Street, Suite 400</div><div>Reston, VA 20190</div><div>202-370-5637</div><div><a href="mailto:vint@google.com" target="_blank">vint@google.com</a></div><div><br></div>
</div></span><br></span><br></span> </div><br></div><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><div>On Mar 29, 2009, at 10:01 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><p><font color="navy" face="Arial" size="2"> Thank you mark</font></p>
<div><br></div><hr align="center" size="2" width="100%"> <font face="Tahoma" size="2"> <b>From</b>: <a href="mailto:mark.edward.davis@gmail.com" target="_blank">mark.edward.davis@gmail.com</a> <br><b>To</b>: Vint Cerf <br>
<b>Cc</b>: <a href="mailto:idna-update@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">idna-update@alvestrand.no</a> <br><b>Sent</b>: Sun Mar 29 17:57:24 2009<br><b>Subject</b>: Re: consensus Call: TATWEEL <br></font><div><br></div> Vint, I want to relay to you a relevant message on the topic of LB vs Morfin.<br>
<br>Mark<br><br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11, Randy Presuhn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com" target="_blank">randy_presuhn@mindspring.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
Hi -<br><br> My co-chair Martin Duerst and I, and the three independent ltru working<br> group participants we asked (as well as some we didn't ask), are<br> convinced that "LB" is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin. In consultation<br>
with Chris Newman, the responsible area director, we set the<br> "moderated" bit for that subscriber address on the working group<br> mailing list. If "LB" believes we have acted inappropriately, "LB" is<br>
free to follow the appeal process described in section 6.5 of RFC 2026.<br><br> However, the vocabulary, style, content, and peculiar world-view of<br> this latest missive leave me more convinced than ever that "LB"<br>
is indeed JFC Morphin, and that under the terms of RFC 3683<br> we are well justified in suspending the posting privileges for that<br> address.<br><br> Randy<br> ltru co-chair<br></div> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 17:36, LB <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lbleriot@gmail.com" target="_blank">lbleriot@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
2009/3/22 Vint Cerf <<a href="mailto:vint@google.com" target="_blank">vint@google.com</a>>:<br> <div>> Based on the on-line exchanges, it appears to me that the general<br> > consensus is to ban TATWEEL by exception (ie. make it DISALLOWED).<br>
><br> > Please respond with:<br> ><br> > YES (ie make it DISALLOWED)<br> ><br> > NO (ie leave it PVALID)<br> <br> </div>NO.<br> <div><br> > OTHER: <explain what you propose><br> <br> </div>Each TLD Manager to decide.<br>
<div><br> > I will tally the responses arriving by April 4, midnight, EDT.<br> <br> </div>--<br> <font color="#888888">LB<br> </font><div><div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br> Idna-update mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Idna-update@alvestrand.no" target="_blank">Idna-update@alvestrand.no</a><br> <a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>