<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Cary Karp <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ck@nic.museum">ck@nic.museum</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 class="im">> let operators (who are lamentably absent from IETF discussions by and<br>
> large) work out how to handle the additional diversity<br>
<br>
</div>The operators of .CY and .GR have told us in official capacity that they<br>
want the final sigma to be PVALID, fully aware of the collateral effects<br>
that they will then need to deal with. It would be delusional to believe<br>
that the supportive action of the respective governments could not be<br>
mustered.<br>
<br>
Would someone who understands IETF process better than I do please<br>
explain why the discussion of that character needs to proceed any further?<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div>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.<br>
</div></div><br>Lisa<br>