consensus Call: TATWEEL

Mark Davis mark at
Mon Mar 30 02:57:24 CEST 2009

Vint, I want to relay to you a relevant message on the topic of LB vs


On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11, Randy Presuhn
<randy_presuhn at>wrote:
Hi -

My co-chair Martin Duerst and I, and the three independent ltru working
group participants we asked (as well as some we didn't ask), are
convinced that "LB" is a sock-puppet for JFC Morfin.  In consultation
with Chris Newman, the responsible area director, we set the
"moderated" bit for that subscriber address on the working group
mailing list. If "LB" believes we have acted inappropriately, "LB" is
free to follow the appeal process described in section 6.5  of RFC 2026.

However, the vocabulary, style, content, and peculiar world-view of
this latest missive leave me more convinced than ever that "LB"
is indeed JFC Morphin, and that under the terms of RFC 3683
we are well justified in suspending the posting privileges for that

ltru co-chair

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 17:36, LB <lbleriot at> wrote:

> 2009/3/22 Vint Cerf <vint at>:
> > Based on the on-line exchanges, it appears to me that the general
> > consensus is to ban TATWEEL by exception (ie. make it DISALLOWED).
> >
> > Please respond with:
> >
> > YES (ie make it DISALLOWED)
> >
> > NO (ie leave it PVALID)
> NO.
> > OTHER: <explain what you propose>
> Each TLD Manager to decide.
> > I will tally the responses arriving by April 4, midnight, EDT.
> --
> LB
> _______________________________________________
> Idna-update mailing list
> Idna-update at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Idna-update mailing list