Data on confusables

[Gervase Markham]

On 30/07/09 12:06, Vint Cerf wrote:
> The WG went around on this topic several times and reached a
> conclusion that differs from Mark's. At this point, I don't understand
> the rationale for re-opening the debate.

Mark said that he didn't think IDNA2008 would help with problem X. I 
said that I thought it would. How is this "reopening a debate"? I 
suppose it would be a fair criticism to say that our personal 
speculations are unneeded on the list. But I don't see either of us 
asking for any documents to be changed.

Gerv